Skip to main content

Full text of "The Scotch-Irish : or, The Scot in North Britain, north Ireland, and North America"

See other formats


*m 


GIFT   OF 
MICHAEL  REESE 


~1 


"V*^ 


*& 


Copyright,  1902 

BY 

CHARLES   A.   HANNA 


Zbe  twtcherbocfcer  press.  View  tfocfe 


TO  THE  FORGOTTEN  DEAD 

OF  THAT   INDOMITABLE   RACE 

WHOSE  PIONEERS 

IN  UNBROKEN   RANKS   FROM  CHAMPLAIN  TO   FLORIDA 

FORMED  THE  ADVANCE  GUARD   OF  CIVILIZATION 

IN  ITS  PROGRESS  TO   THE   MISSISSIPPI 

AND   FIRST  CONQUERED,  SUBDUED,  AND  PLANTED   THE 

WILDERNESS   BETWEEN 


"    °! 


PREFACE 

THESE  volumes  are  designed  to  serve  as  an  introduction  to  a  series  of 
Historical  Collections  which  the  writer  expects  hereafter  to  publish, 
relating  to  the  early  Scotch-Irish  settlements  in  America.  They  are  not  in- 
tended as  a  history  of  the  Scotch  -  Irish  people,  for  such  a  work  would 
require  more  time  and  labor  than  have  been  expended  upon  the  present 
undertaking. 

The  subject  is  one,  like  that  of  the  history  of  America  itself,  which  must 
wait  for  some  future  gifted  historian  ;  but  unlike  the  subject  of  American 
history  in  general,  it  is  also  one  concerning  which  no  comprehensive  treat- 
ment has  ever  been  attempted.  Such  being  the  case,  in  order  to  enable  the 
reader  to  understand  the  relation  of  the  Scotch-Irish  to  American  history, 
it  has  seemed  necessary  to  make  a  brief  general  survey  of  the  origin  and 
old-world  history  of  the  race  to  which  the  Scotch-Irish  belong. 

In  doing  this,  it  has  not  been  his  purpose  to  attempt  even  an  outline 
sketch  of  the  history  of  Scotland,  but  merely  to  condense  and  connect  the 
record  of  its  most  important  events,  and  indicate  some  of  the  principal 
writers  upon  different  aspects  of  its  history. 

The  fact  is,  that  the  lack  of  acquaintance  of  many  native-born  Americans 
with  the  details  of  Scottish  history  is  such  that  they  require  an  elemen- 
tary grounding  even  in  the  annals  of  its  most  noteworthy  events.  Such 
a  primer  the  writer  has  undertaken  to  prepare.  In  doing  so,  he  has  found 
it  advisable  to  compile,  epitomize,  and  consolidate  a  number  of  the  most 
compact  of  the  sketches  of  Scottish  history  which  have  appeared  in  Great 
Britain,  using  for  this  purpose  the  writings  of  William  F.  Skene  and  of  E. 
William  Robertson,  the  Annals  of  Lord  Hailes,  the  brief  history  of  Mack- 
intosh and,  for  the  topographical  and  ethnographical  description  of  Scot- 
land of  the  present  day,  the  works  of  the  French  geographer  and  traveller, 
J.  J.  E.  Reclus,  of  which  an  edition  in  English  has  been  published  by 
Messrs.  D.  Appleton  &  Company. 

The  written  history  of  the  Scots  in  Ireland  is  in  very  much  the  same 
condition  as  their  history  in  America.  Few  attempts  have  been  made  to 
record  it;  and  for  this  reason,  very  little  of  their  history  can  be  presented. 
What  is  given  has  been  condensed  chiefly  from  Harrison's  monograph  on 
The  Scot  in  Ulster;  from  Latimer's  and  Reid's  histories  of  the  Irish  Presby- 
terians; and  from  Hill's  Plantation  of  Ulster.  The  most  valuable  features  of 
the  present  volumes  in  this  connection  will  be  found  to  be  the  contemporary 
documents  and  reports  relating  to  the  inception  and  progress  of  the  coloni- 
zation of  Northern  Ireland  by  the  Scots. 

Scottish  history,  as  has  been  intimated,  is  as  a  sealed  book  to  the  great 
majority  of  American  readers.     In  the  United  States,  outside  of  the  public 


VI 


Preface 


libraries  in  perhaps  two  or  three  of  the  larger  cities,  it  is  difficult  to  find 
reprints  of  any  of  the  original  sources  of  information  on  the  history  of  Scot- 
land, or  indeed  any  commentaries  on  the  subject,  except  occasional  copies 
of  the  histories  of  Dr.  William  Robertson  and  Mr.  John  Hill  Burton,  neither 
of  which  is  adapted  to  present  requirements.  For  this  reason,  it  has  been 
deemed  essential  by  the  writer,  in  giving  his  references,  to  print  the  citations 
in  full;  as  it  seems  probable  that  that  is  the  only  means  of  making  them 
available  to  the  greater  part  of  his  readers. 

New  York,  Dec.  i,  1901. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I — The  Scotch-Irish  and  the  Revolution  i 

II — The  Scotch-Irish  and  the  Constitution         .         .         .31 

III — The  Scotch-Irish  in  American  Politics           ...  49 

IV — New  England  not  the  Birthplace  of  American  Liberty  55 

V — Liberty  of  Speech  and  Conscience  Definitely  Estab- 
lished in  America  by  Men  of  Scottish  Blood         .         .  70 

VI — The   American  People   not    Racially   Identical   with 

those  of  New  England  .......  78 

VII — American  Ideals  more  Scottish  than  English       .         .  90 

VIII — The  Scottish  Kirk  and  Human  Liberty         ...  105 

IX — Religion  in  Early  Scotland  and  Early  England        .  120 

X — Scottish  Achievement 133 

XI — The    Tudor-Stuart    Church    Responsible    for    Early 

American  Animosity  to  England 146 

XII — Who  are  the  Scotch-Irish  ? 159 

XIII — Scotland  of  To-day     .....                .         .  169 

XIV — The  Caledonians,  or  Picts 182 

XV — The  Scots  and  Picts 199 

XVI — The  Britons 224 

XVII — The  Norse  and  Galloway 235 

XVIII— The  Angles 265 

XIX — Scottish    History    in    the    English    or    Anglo-Saxon 

Chronicle 289 

XX — From  Malcolm  Canmore  to  King  David         .         .         .316 

XXI — William  the  Lion 338 

XXII — The  Second  and  Third  Alexanders  to  John  Baliol    .  352 

vii 


viii  Contents 


CHAPTER 

XXIII — Wallace  and  Bruce 


XXIV — John  of  Fordun's  Annals  of  Wallace  and  Bruce 

XXV — From  Bruce  to  Flodden 

XXVI — The  Beginning  of  the  Reformation  . 

,     XXVII— The  Days  of  Knox 

XXVIII — James  Stuart,  Son  of  Mary       .... 
XXIX — The  Wisest  Fool  in  Christendom 

XXX — Scotland  under  Charles  I 

XXXI — Scotland  under  Charles  II.  and  the  Bishops 
XXXII — Ireland  under  the  Tudors         .... 
XXXIII — The  Scottish  Plantation  of  Down  and  Antrim 
XXXIV — The  Great  Plantation  of  Ulster    . 
XXXV — The  Ulster  Plantation  from  1610  to  1630 
XXXVI — Stewart's  and  Brereton's  Accounts  of  the  Plan 

tation  of  Ulster 

XXXVII — Church  Rule  in  Ireland  and  its  Results 
XXXVIII — Londonderry  and  Enniskillen  .... 
XXXIX — The  Emigration  from  Ulster  to  America 


366 
378 
398 

408 

415 

424 

433 
439 
45i 
469 

486 
498 
506 

568 
559 
579 
614 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Acknowledgments  are  due  to  the  publishers  hereinafter  named  for 
their  courtesy  in  permitting  the  use.  in  text  and  notes,  of  extracts  from  their 
publications,  as  follows  : 

To  Messrs.  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  publishers  of  Recluses  The  World  and  Its  Inhabitants, 
Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States,  and  Lecky's  England  in  the  XVIIIth  Century. 

To  Messrs.  William  Blackwood  &  Sons,  publishers  of  Burton's  History  of  Scotland, 
Harrison's  Scot  in  Ulster,  MacKerlie's  Galloway  :  Ancient  and  Modern,  and  Maxwell's  His- 
tory of  Dumfries  and  Galloway. 

To  James  Cleland,  publisher,  and  W.  T.  Latimer,  author,  of  Latimer's  History  of  the 
Irish  Presbyterians. 

To  David  Douglas,  publisher  of  Robertson's  Scotland  under  Her  Early  Kings,  and 
Skene's  Celtic  Scotland. 

To  Joseph  Foster,  editor  of  Members  of  the  Scottish  Parliament. 

To  Samuel  Swett  Green,  author  and  publisher  of  The  Scotch-Irish  in  America. 

To  Messrs.  Macmillan  &  Co.,  Limited,  London,  publishers  of  Green's  Short  History  of 
England,  Making  of  England,  Conquest  of  England,  and  General  History  of  England.. 

To  Messrs.  Harper  &  Brothers,  publishers  of  Campbell's  The  Puritan  in  Holland,  Eng- 
land, and  America,  Freeman's  Origin  of  the  English  Nation,  and  Green's  Short  History  of 
England,  Conquest  o.f  England,  and  Alaking  of  England. 

To  Messrs.  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co.,  publishers  of  Adams's  Massachusetts :  Its 
Historians  and  Its  History,  Fiske's  Critical  Period  of  American  History,  and  Winsor's 
Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America. 

To  Messrs.  J.  B.  Lippincott  &  Co.,  publishers  of  Fisher's  Evolution  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

To  Messrs.  Longmans  &  Co.  and  Messrs.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  publishers  of  Froude's 
English  in  Ireland. 

To  Messrs.  Longmans  &  Co.,  publishers  of  Lecky's  England  in  the  XVIIIth  Century. 

To  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication,  publishers  of  Breed's  Presbyterians  and  the 
Revolution,  Craighead's  Scotch  and  Irish  Seeds  in  American  Soil,  and  Moffat's  The  Church 
in  Scotland. 

To  Oliver  P.  Temple,  author  of  The  Covenanter ,  Cavalier,  and  Puritan. 

To  James  Thin,  publisher  of  Cunningham's  Church  History  of  Scotland. 

To  T.  Fisher  Unwin,  publisher  of  Rhys's  The  Welsh  People. 


AMERICA'S  DEBT  TO  SCOTLAND 


CHAPTER    I 

THE   SCOTCH-IRISH   AND   THE   REVOLUTION 

THE  term  "  Scotch-Irish  "  is  peculiarly  American,  and  in  tracing  its  ori- 
gin we  have,  epitomized,  the  history  of  the  people  to  whom  it  is  now 
applied.  The  word  seems  to  have  come  into  general  use  since  the  Revolu- 
tion, having  been  first  taken  as  a  race-name  by  many  individuals  of  a  very 
large  class  of  people  in  the  United  States,  descendants  of  emigrants  of  Scot- 
tish blood  from  the  North  of  Ireland.  The  name  was  not  used  by  the  first 
of  these  emigrants,  neither  was  it  generally  applied  to  them  by  the  people 
whom  they  met  here.1  They  usually  called  themselves  "  Scotch,"  just  as  the 
descendants  of  their  former  neighbors  in  Northern  Ireland  do  to-day  ;  and 
as  do  some  of  their  own  descendants  in  this  country,  who  seemingly  are 
averse  to  acknowledging  any  connection  with  Ireland.3  The  Quakers  and 
the  Puritans  generally  spoke  of  them  as  "  the  Irish,"  *  and,  during  the  Revo- 
lutionary period,  we  find  a  large  and  influential  body  of  these  people  joined 
together  at  Philadelphia,  in  the  formation  of  a  patriotic  association  to 
which  they  gave  the  distinctively  Irish  title,  "  The  Society  of  the  Friendly 
Sons  of  St.  Patrick."  4 

The  appellation  "  Scotch- Irish  "  is  not,  as  many  people  suppose,  an  indi- 
cation of  a  mixed  Hiberno-Scottish  descent  ;  although  it  could  be  properly 
so  used  in  many  cases.  It  was  first  appropriated  as  a  distinctive  race-name 
by,  and  is  now  generally  applied  to,  the  descendants  in  America  of  the  early 
Scotch  Presbyterian  emigrants  from  Ireland.  These  Scotch  people,  for  a 
hundred  years  or  more  after  1600,  settled  with  their  wives  and  families  in 
Ulster,  in  the  North  of  Ireland,  whence  their  descendants,  for  a  hundred 
years  after  1700, — having  long  suffered  under  the  burdens  of  civil  and  religi- 
ous oppression  imposed  by  commercial  greed  and  despotic  ecclesiasticism, 
—  sought  a  more  promising  home  in  America. 


It  has  been  remarked  by  some  recent  observers  in  this  country  that  while 
American  history  has  been  chiefly  written  in  New  England,  that  section  has 
not  been  the  chief  actor  in  its  events. 

No  doubt  the  second  part  of  this  proposition  would  be  disputed  by  a  large 

1 


2  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

number  of  American  people  as  not  substantiated,  who  would  perhaps  claim 
that  their  position  was  supported  by  the  testimony  of  a  majority  of  the  writers 
on  the  subject.  With  the  latter  claim  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  take  issue.  Yet 
the  first  part  of  the  proposition  is  more  lacking  in  substantiation  than  the 
second.  For,  while  it  is  apparent  that  the  natural  spirit  of  self-assertion,  so  J 
early  manifested  by  the  descendants  of  the  English  Puritans,  has  found - 
expression  in  a  lengthy  series  of  recitals  of  the  doings  and  virtues  of  New 
England  men,  it  is  no  less  evident  that  these  portrayals  are  largely  of 
restricted  application,  and,  for  the  most  part,  can  only  be  considered 
as  contributions  to  that  portion  of  American  history  which  is  called  local. 

That  these  writings  have  ever  been  taken  as  national  history  arises  per- 
haps from  a  conjunction  of  two  causes,  or  conditions.  The  first  of  these,  and 
one  that  naturally  would  have  been  ineffective  without  the  other,  is  the 
marked  tendency  on  the  part  of  many  New  England  writers  to  ignore  or  be- 
little the  presence  of  any  element  not  within  the  range  of  their  own  immedi- 
ate horizon.  In  this  they  are  peculiarly  English,  and  exhibit  that  trait  which 
has  become  so  characteristic  of  the  native  English  as  to  take  its  name  from 
their  geographical  situation,  namely — insularity.  The  second  cause,  which 
will  be  more  fully  adverted  to  hereafter,  arises  from  the  comparative  dearth 
of  historical  writings  originating  outside  of  the  Puritan  colonies. 

The  New  England  fathers  came  to  a  strange  coast  and  found  stretching 
back  from  the  shore  a  forbidding  wilderness,  to  them  of  such  unknown 
depth  that  it  was  not  until  after  a  slow  and  gradual  pushing  forward  of  the 
frontier  line  for  a  period  extending  over  a  century  and  a  half  that 
their  children  found  this  wilderness  was  unsubdued  only  as  far  west  as  the 
Hudson  River  ; 6  and  fully  another  century  elapsed  before  many  of  them  were 
willing  to  acknowledge  this  .to  be  the  case.  To  the  fathers,  accordingly, 
New  England  meant  America,  and  to  some  of  the  sons  who  stayed  at  home  it 
is  not  unnatural  that  the  western  boundary  line  of  America  should  seem  to 
be  fixed  at  the  point  where  the  early  Dutch  settlements  began. 

In  the  examination  of  the  contributions  of  the  New  England  writers  to 
the  "  history  of  America,"  therefore,  it  is  only  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the 
restricted  sense  in  which  so  many  of  them  use  this  term,  and  to  observe  their 
superficial  treatment  of  men  and  affairs  not  within  their  own  provincial 
boundaries,  to  enable  us  to  accept  these  contributions  at  their  true  value. 
Hence  we  can  take  pride  with  the  New  Englanders  in  the  noble  deeds  which 
they  narrate  of  their  fathers  and  of  the  good  these  fathers  wrought  for  their 
own  communities,  and  can  thus  understand  the  nature  and  extent  of  New 
England's  contribution  to  the  good  of  our  country  as  a  whole. 

It  is,  however,  this  inevitable  disposition  on  the  part  of  New  England 
writers  in  their  treatment  of  American  history  to  magnify  local  at  the  ex- 
pense of  national  affairs,  to  which  may  be  attributed  so  much  of  the  present 
adverse  criticism  of  their  authority.  If  it  be  said  that  this  tendency  is  only 
a  natural  manifestation  of  the  dominating  Anglo-Saxon  spirit,  which  brooks 


The  Revolution  3 

no  rivalry  and  sees  no  good  in  anything  foreign  to  itself,  it  may  properly  be 
answered  that  the  page  of  impartial  history  is  no  place  for  such  display.8 
The  share  of  New  England  in  making  American  history  is  great ;  but  it  is 
perhaps  not  so  great  as  its  chroniclers  would  have  us  believe.  Neither  can 
it  be  said  by  any  fair-minded  student  that  the  events  which  took  place  on  the 
soil  of  New  England  are  of  chief  interest  or  importance  in  connection  with 
the  progress  and  success  of  the  American  War  of  Independence,  and  the 
foundation  of  our  present  system  of  government  subsequent  thereto,  even 
though  the  record  of  those  events  forms  the  substance  of  a  majority  of  the 
books  which  have  been  called  American  history. 

A  notable  instance  of  this  one-sided  treatment  of  our  country's  history,  if 
not  of  its  actual  perversion,  on  the  part  of  all  but  the  most  recent  writers, 
treating  the  subject  from  a  New  England  standpoint,  is  that  furnished  by  cer- 
tain tables  purporting  to  give  the  numbers  of  troops  supplied  by  the  different 
colonies  in  the  Revolutionary  War.  These  tables  have  appeared  in  whole  or 
in  part  a  great  many  times  during  the  past  sixty  years,  and  until  recently  have 
been  quite  generally  cited  to  show  the  superior  patriotism  of  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut  over  that  of  the  other  colo- 
nies, and  to  sustain  the  claim,  repeatedly  made,  that  New  England  furnished 
more  than  half  the  soldiers  in  that  struggle.  The  tables  first  appeared  in  the 
Collections  of  the  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society  for  1824.,  vol.  i.,  p.  236  ; 
then  in  the  American  Almanac  for  1830,  p.  187,  and  for  i8ji,  p.  1 12;  in  Niles 's 
Register  for  July  31,  1830  ;  in  Sabine's  Loyalists  of  the  Revolution,  in  1847,  p. 
31  ;  in  Lossing's  Field  Book  of  the  Revolution,  vol.  ii.,  p.  837  ;  in  Hildreth's 
History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iii.,  p.  441  ;  in  Barry's  Massachusetts,  vol.  ii., 
p.  304  ;  in  Greene's  Historical  View  of  the  American  Revolution,  p.  455  ;  etc.T 
They  are  supposed  to  be  founded  on  a  report  made  to  Congress,  May  n, 
1790,  by  Henry  Knox,  then  Secretary  of  War  ;  but  they  contain  only  a 
portion  of  the  figures  given  in  that  report,  and  utterly  ignore  and  omit  the 
part  relating  to  the  enlistment  and  service  of  certain  southern  troops  com- 
posing, perhaps,  one  fourth  of  the  entire  army.  The  compilers  of  the  tables 
also  attempt  to  summarize  the  portion  given,  by  adding  up  the  aggregates  of 
the  various  enlistment  rolls  for  the  whole  Revolutionary  period  (many  of 
which  in  the  early  part  of  the  war  were  duplicated  more  than  four  times  in 
a  single  year,  the  same  names  appearing  at  every  ninety-days'  re-enlistment), 
and  then  claiming  that  the  results  reached  give  the  total  number  of  Regulars 
furnished  by  the  different  colonies  in  the  struggle.  This  erroneous  sum- 
mary appears  as  follows  : 

New  Hampshire 12,496 

Massachusetts 67,807' 

Rhode  Island 5,908 

Connecticut 3r>939 

New  York 17,781 

New  Jersey 10,726 

Carried  forward 146,657 


4  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Brought  forward 146,657 

Pennsylvania 25,678 

Delaware 2,386 

Maryland 13,912 

Virginia 26,678 

North  Carolina 7,263 

South  Carolina 6,417 

Georgia 2,679 

231,670 

The  report  on  which  these  tables  are  said  to  be  founded  is  published  in 
the  American  State  Papers,  vol.  i.,  pp.  14-19,  of  the  series  relating  to  Mili- 
tary Affairs  ;  and  in  order  to  show  the  falsity  of  the  statements  based  upon 
the  garbled  and  incomplete  extract  made  from  it  in  the  aforesaid  tables,  the 
report  is  here  given  in  full  and  the  figures  accompanying  the  same  appear 
in  tabulated  form  on  the  opposite  page.  This  tabulation,  it  may  be  re- 
marked, shows  the  form  in  which  the  incomplete  statement  appears,  as  well 
as  the  full  report, —  the  figures  here  printed  in  heavy-faced  type  being 
omitted  from  all  of  the  former  tables  since  the  first  report  of  Knox. 


TROOPS,    INCLUDING     MILITIA,    FURNISHED    BY    THE    SEVERAL    STATES 
DURING    THE    WAR    OF    THE    REVOLUTION. 

Communicated  to  the  House  of  Representatives >  May  11,  1790. 

War  Office  of  the  United  States,  May  10,  1790. 

In  obedience  to  the  order  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  Secretary 
of  War  submits  the  statement  hereunto  annexed  of  the  troops  and  militia 
furnished  from  time  to  time  by  the  several  States,  towards  the  support  of  the 
late  war. 

The  numbers  of  the  regular  troops  having  been  stated  from  the  official 
returns  deposited  in  the  War  Office,  may  be  depended  upon  ;  and  in  all 
cases  where  the  numbers  of  militia  are  stated  from  the  returns,  the  same 
confidence  may  be  observed. 

But  in  some  years  of  the  greatest  exertions  of  the  Southern  States  there 
are  no  returns  whatever  of  the  militia  employed.  In  this  case  recourse  has 
been  had  to  letters  of  the  commanding  officer,  and  to  well  informed  indi- 
viduals, in  order  to  form  a  proper  estimate  of  the  numbers  of  the  militia  in 
service  ;  and  although  the  accuracy  of  the  estimate  cannot  be  relied  on,  yet 
it  is  the  best  information  which  the  Secretary  of  War  can  at  present  obtain. 
When  the  accounts  of  the  militia  service  of  the  several  States  shall  be 
adjusted  it  is  probable  that  the  numbers  will  be  better  ascertained. 

There  are  not  any  documents  in  the  War  Office  from  which  accurate  re- 
turns could  be  made  of  the  ordnance  stores  furnished  by  the  several  States 
during  the  late  war.  The  charges  made  by  the  several  States  against  the 
United  States,  which  have  been  presented  by  the  commissioners  of  accounts, 
are,  probably,  the  only  evidence  which  can  be  obtained  on  the  subject. 

All  of  which  is  humbly  submitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 

H.  Knox,  Secretary  of  War. 


vQ   O 

t>o 

co  O 

oo 

H    O 

o  o 

100  O 

O  O 
co  o 
eng 

M    O 

co  o 

en  o 

r^  O 

O  o 

I      o 

i(  paqsiiunj  sjbj 
-n2a>i  io3JbS3j3 

o  o 

&  ° 

.  IT] 

Ojifl  o>o 

co  io  «o  <>o 

c>0 

OoO 

«8 

^tco 

5^o 

»n 

CM 

-3v„ 

139JJ03UJ 

2  ^ 

£"«* 

^M 

en^ 

Cr°°" 

2  N 

^  m" 

M     "• 

H 

N  c> 

1      en 

IO 

\H     **& 

en 

o 

<N 

O 

o 

in 

CO 

in 

Tj" 

O 

r^ 

O 

in 

O 

CO 

o    g 

en 

r^. 

r-» 

^r 

o 

t>. 

o 

to 

r^ 

CM 

o 

en 

Tt 

r^ 

r^ 

i^. 

CO 

en 

r» 

O 

in 

<N 

o 

o 

O 

-r 

Ti- 

H 

en 

U    c 

CM 

*-*j    a 

<+ 

en 

1- 

«>! 

CO 

3 

in 

<t 

o 

T*-    O 

tn 

o 

o 

vO 

CO 

o    g 

■4 

CM 

00 

en 

o 

O 

O 

CO 

o  o 

O 

O 

o 

M 

"T. 

8 

CO 

r^ 

t^ 

3 

T 

r^ 

« 

o 

N 

« 

cm  5 

M    M 

t>« 

.2 

o 

M 

t-^ 

"*0 

o 

o 

O 

CO 

o 

O 

en 

^o 

o 

o 

vn 

Tt 

CO 

2 

xn 

en 

CO    0 
CM    O 

o 
en 

o 

CO 

*»■. 

1 

H 

•i  3 

8 

cm 

"«* 

0 

CO 

en 

o 

o 

O 

in 

in 

CM 

en 

O 

N 

»>. 

N 

rf 

CO 

t->i 

CM 

Tt 

O 

5  "S 

t^ 

t>. 

■* 

<*■ 

r*. 

CO 

en 

t^ 

CM 

in 

co 

O      <u 

en 

CS 

M 

en 

U    c 

.2 

5 

o 

"* 

co  O 

a 

_ 

o 

o        O 

o 

w 

a 

en 
*t 
en 

o  o 
o  o 

o 

en 

o 

o       o 
o       o 

IO 

s 

O 

CO 

s 

N 

Tf 

co      >o 

CM 
CM 

r^ 

■ 

. 

M 

•i         « 

t^ 

en 

vr> 

I  en 

o 

in 

r^ 

xn 

in 

o 

in 

o    g 

in 

!  e<-> 

r>. 

O 

en 

« 

O 

CO 

o 

5 

O 

M 

en 

en 

o 

<* 

O 

i  «n 

N 

en 

CM 

CM 

U    c 

1 

CM 

.5 

cm 

H 

O 

o 

o 

vfi    O 

o 

o 

in 

*j 

cm 

in 

in 

o 

O 

2.  o 

o 

to 

CO 

■— > 

cm 

•+ 

i~> 

m 

NO 

^  o 

xTt 

r-» 

Tt 

S 

H 

Ti- 

N   M 

*t 

r^. 

M 

•rt     rt 

Tt 

r-> 

r» 

rf 

O 

vO 

o 

t^. 

o> 

en 

Tt 

<y> 

t^ 

o 

£    e 

8 

CO 

O 

n- 

in 

r^ 

r->i 

Tt     . 

r^ 

o 

CO 

o 

CM 

xn 

»r> 

M 

n 

ri- 

en 

CO 

O 

CM 

o 

vO 

q    <u 

o 

en 

N 

cn 

CM 

en 

1^ 

O   c 

CM 

.2 

O 

r^O 

O 

O 

o 

o 

O 

en 

o 

«o 

M 

O 

o 

o 

O 

in 

\n 

Ovo 

't 

O 

NO 

o 

CM 

M 

CO 

S 

M   Tt 

M 

M 

N 

CM 

CO 

CO 

en 

o 

o 

O 

•i- 

o 

Tj- 

O 

r^ 

o 

t-». 

0 

en 

en 

co 

en 

C7> 

CO 

oo 

Ti- 

O 

CO 

co 

in 

r^ 

o 

S   c 

a 

o 

O 

O 

in 

o 

en 

en 

CM 

CM 

o 

o 

CO 

O      <u 

r^ 

Tt 

CM 

en 

en 

in 

►1 

CM 

U    a 

en 

.2 

M    O 

m  o 

o 

o 

oo 

O 

M    O 

O 

in  o 

oo 

o 

o 

Q 

** 

M  o 

£© 

o 

o 

S.O 

O 

co  o 

o 

eno 

"2  9 

IO 

»o 

& 

j— < 

2  N 

£T© 

to 

o 

Oli-) 

m 

3"© 

o 

"?o 

SJ  o 

CO 

t^ 

O 

S 

M  Csl 

N  IN 

H 

N 

N 

M 

N   N 

M 

* 

M  "t- 

en 
en 

1-1 

•_i     c-s 

cm 

O 

x» 

en 

en 

CO 

en 

o 

o 

5 

M 

o 

en 

O 

-j     +j 

r» 

t 

O 

O 

O 

CO 

o 

en 

CO 

xn 

CM 

a 

5   c 

CO 

lO 

ir> 

O 

■<fr 

O 

CM 

O 

t^ 

CM 

O 

rr 

co 

O      <u 

t^ 

rf 

Tt 

CM 

xn 

M 

Tt 

U     B 

en 

.2 

O 

2  © 

<N 

r-»o 

u^  O 

en 

vO 

in 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

O 

+* 

o 

2  o 

o 

en  o 

f  IO    C7> 

r^ 

Tt 

o 

o 

o 

IO 

o 

o 

S.o 

r^  © 

t^tsi  CO 

CO 

in 

o 

o 

o 

r-< 

O 

<, 

M 

^co 

M 

">% 

H«h 

rt 

CM 

co 

T$- 

M 

CM 

Tt 

H 

"-      w 

o 

cm 

CO 

O 

C> 

en 

O 

j 

t^. 

M 

Ti- 

o 

H 

H 

i^» 

o 

o 

N 

O 

en 

CO 

en 

? 

in 

8, 

5  "S 

o 

en 

r>i 

en 

o 

in 

o 

o 

HI 

en 

O      <u 

en 

en 

vO 

en 

en 

in 

O 

M 

CM 

o 

U    « 

M 

Tt 

.2 

Tf 

Tt 

en 

r«. 

m 

8 

o 

o 

o 

O 

en 

r». 

** 

N 

3: 

o 

O 

r-» 

CO 

o 

o 

O 

CM 

r^ 

S 

CO 

CM 

| 

w 

xn 

O 

rf 

M 

en 

o 

o 

O 

M 

O 

en 

V 

H 

12 

!/> 

"O 

.2 

e 

c 

0 

r> 

■A 

3 

e 

•w 

2 

1 

i 

4 

4 

S 

3 
O 

^ 

V 

■o 

1 

o 

2 

1 

c 

< 

ft 

(4 

i 
i 

•5 

1 

o 

> 

I 

t 

§ 

s 

Q 

c 
2 

"S 

> 

1 
o 

3 
O 

"ft 

2 
o 

o 
H 

6  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  column  of  aggregate  footings  which  appears 
at  the  right  side  of  the  table  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  original  report  of  Gen- 
eral Knox.  This  column  gives  the  erroneous  summary  of  the  successive 
enlistment  rolls,  already  referred  to;  but  these  rolls  cannot  be  added  together 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  number  of  troops  furnished  with  any  more 
propriety  than  we  can  add  the  population  of  Massachusetts  in  1776  to  that 
of  the  same  State  in  1777,  1778,  1779,  1780,  and  1781  for  the  purpose  of  find- 
ing out  the  number  of  people  who  lived  there  during  the  Revolution.  We 
might  attempt  to  make  an  approximation  of  the  average  number  of  troops 
from  each  State  by  dividing  the  aggregates  of  the  complete  returns  by  the  total 
number  of  years,  but  this  would  only  afford  a  conjectural  average  upon  which 
no  reliance  could  be  placed  ;  for  besides  the  fact  that  Knox's  militia  returns 
are  mainly  estimated,  many  of  the  early  Continental  enlistments,  as  has  been 
already  stated,  were  made  for  only  three  months  at  a  time,  and  either  re- 
newed at  the  expiration  of  the  term  by  re-enlistment,  or  the  ranks  filled  by 
fresh  levies  ;  or,  as  was  more  generally  the  case  during  1775  and  1776,  the 
Continental  ranks  were  so  frequently  depleted  by  desertions  that  to  ascribe 
an/ average  service  of  one  month  to  each  man  enlisted  therein  during  the 
first  eighteen  months  of  the  war  would  perhaps  be  nearer  a  true  statement 
of  the  fact  than  to  set  the  service  of  each  individual  at  from  three  to  twelve 
months.  The  militia  estimates,  however,  as  General  Knox  states,  approxi- 
mate the  numbers  actually  serving,  and  are  not,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Conti- 
nentals, merely  records  of  enlistments.  It  will  also  be  noticed  that  these 
militia  reports  do  not  refer  to  the  minutemen  or  militiamen  who  did  not  serve, 
but  the  estimates  are  of  those  who  were  actually  called  out  and  saw  service 
in  the  field.  In  the  South  this  service  was  perhaps  harder  and  more  fatal — 
and  relatively  much  more  effective — than  that  of  the  Continental  line  in  the 
North,  for  the  reason  that  the  patriots  of  the  South  had  to  contend  not  only 
with  the  invading  armies  from  abroad,  but  also  with  the  armed  forces  of 
their  Tory  neighbors  at  home,  whose  numbers  often  exceeded  their  own,  and 
the  cruelty  and  brutality  of  whose  attacks  were  surpassed  only  by  the  savage 
atrocities  of  another  of  Great  Britain's  hired  auxiliaries — the  native  Indians.8 

The  fact  is  that  these  tables  of  Knox,  as  they  now  exist,  are  of  little  or 
no  value  whatever  in  giving  a  correct  idea  of  the  proportionate  number  of 
troops  furnished  by  the  different  colonies.  We  know  that  Pennsylvania,  for 
instance,  had  more  than  twenty  thousand  men  in  the  Flying  Camp,  who  saw 
service  about  New  York,  in  1776  ;  yet  Knox's  tables  show  from  Pennsylvania 
but  little  more  than  half  that  number,  including  both  Continentals  and 
militia.  And  that  almost  as  many  as  twenty-five  thousand  were  under  arms 
in  that  State  the  year  before  is  apparent  from  the  testimony  of  Richard 
Penn  given  before  Parliament  in  1775.9 

The  following  letter,  received  by  the  writer  from  the  War  Department  at 
Washington  in  response  to  an  inquiry  for  some  explanation  of  Knox's 
figures,  will  serve  to  show  how  little  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  them  : 


The  Revolution  7 

September  2,  1897. 
Sir: 

Referring  to  your  letter  of  the  26th  ultimo,  and  its  two  enclosures,  rela- 
tive to  the  number  of  men  in  service  during  the  War  of  the  Revolution,  I 
have  the  honor  to  advise  you  as  follows  : 

Various  tables  and  statements  have  been  made  up  from  the  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  of  May  10,  1790,  referred  to  in  your  letter,  but  I  do  not 
know  of  any  one  of  them  that  is  of  any  value  or  is  entitled  to  any  weight 
whatever.  There  is  nothing  on  file  in  this  Department  which  suggests  any 
interpretation  of  the  figures  given  in  that  report,  and  it  is  impossible  to  ascer- 
tain whether  those  figures  represent  the  number  of  new  enlistments  during 
each  year,  or  whether  they  include  men  who  were  in  service  at  some  time 
during  the  year  but  who  enlisted  in  a  prior  year.  In  other  words,  it  cannot 
be  positively  determined  whether  the  figures  merely  represent  additions  to 
the  force  during  each  year,  or  whether  they  represent  these  additions  to- 
gether with  the  force  remaining  in  service  from  a  prior  year.  It  is  certain 
that,  in  either  case,  they  do  not  represent  the  total  number  of  individuals 
added  to  the  force  in  any  year,  or  the  total  number  of  individuals  in  service 
in  any  year,  because  there  must  have  been  many  duplications  caused  by 
counting  the  same  man  over  again  for  each  successive  enlistment.  As 
pointed  out  in  the  letter  addressed  to  you  by  this  office  on  the  9th  ultimo,  it 
is  well  known  that  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  men  who  served  during 
the  Revolution  rendered  two,  three,  or  more  terms,  or  "  tours,"  of  service. 
This  was  notably  the  case  in  militia  organizations,  in  which  men  frequently 
served  tours  of  a  few  days  each  at  comparatively  short  intervals.     .     .     . 

It  will  never  be  possible  to  determine  with  any  approximation  to  accuracy 
the  number  of  individuals  who  actually  rendered  military  service  during  the 
Revolution.  The  records  that  have  survived  destruction  and  have  been 
handed  down  to  us  are  meagre  in  the  extreme,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  if 
every  military  record  that  was  made  during  the  Revolution  had  been  pre- 
served so  as  to  be  available  for  reference  at  the  present  time,  it  would  be 
possible  to  make  even  a  reasonably  accurate  estimate  of  the  number  of  men 
in  service  from  any  State  or  from  all  the  States  together.  The  records  of 
that  time  were  comparatively  few,  were  imperfectly  kept,  and  contained  but 
little  of  the  statistical  information  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  records  of 
later  wars.  But  even  in  the  case  of  the  War  of  the  Rebellion  of  1861  to 
1865  it  has  been  found  impossible  to  determine  accurately  from  all  of  the 
voluminous  records  that  were  kept  the  number  of  individuals  who  were  in 
service  from  any  State  or  from  all  the  States.     .     .     . 

No  returns  or  other  documents  have  been  found  in  this  Department  from 
which  the  missing  information,  indicated  on  the  list  of  organizations  which 
accompanied  your  letter,  can  be  supplied. 

The  term  "on  command,"  as  given  on  the  published  returns  of  the 
Revolutionary  Army,  is  understood  to  be  equivalent  to  the  term  "  on  de- 
tached service,"  as  used  at  the  present  day,  and  the  number  of  men  so 
reported  should  be  included  with  the  number  of  "  present  and  fit  for  duty  " 
to  determine  the  effective  force  of  the  Army.     .     .     . 

Regretting  my  inability  to  be  of  more  material  service  to  you  in  con- 
nection with  the  subject  of  your  inquiry,  I  am 

Very  respectfully, 

F.  C.  Ainsworth, 
Colonel,  U.  S.  Army, 
Chief,  Record  and  Pension  Office. 


8  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Concerning  the  matter  of  desertions,  the  correspondence  of  Washington, 
in  the  latter  part  of  1776,  contains  numerous  complaints  of  this  evil,  and  in 
some  of  his  letters  of  that  period  to  Governor  Trumbull  he  specifies  the  dis- 
tricts whose  troops  were  most  faulty  in  this  respect.  In  the  same  connection, 
the  following  excerpt  from  an  incomplete  memorial  prepared  by  General 
Steuben  on  the  subject,  and  printed  in  Kapp's  Life  of  Steuben  (pp.  704,  705), 
is  of  great  importance  as  presenting  an  official  statement  of  the  composition 
of  the  army  from  the  Inspector-General  himself.  This  memorial  also  shows 
that  Steuben  accounted  for  the  frequent  re-enlistments  by  suggesting  the  fre- 
quency of  desertions  : 

The  respectable  citizens  who  entered  the  lists  with  so  much  ardor, 
quitted  their  cabins  with  more  regret  to  answer  to  the  second  call.  Those 
who  were  in  more  easy  circumstances  emptied  their  purses  to  induce  those 
who  were  poorer  to  take  their  places.  The  rotation  of  service  soon  became 
a  speculation,  and  before  the  end  of  the  second  campaign  there  were  very 
few  rich  enough  to  pay  a  substitute  to  serve  in  their  stead.  Associations 
were  formed,  and,  by  the  force  of  money,  children,  invalids,  and  vagrants 
were  engaged  to  complete  the  number  of  the  contingents.  These  men  were 
engaged  for  such  short  terms  that  one  recruit  soon  took  the  place  of  another, 
and  the  country  became  quickly  destitute  of  money.  They  then  began  to 
pay  in  produce.  Negroes,  cattle,  produce,  even  lands,  were  given  to  recruits 
who  were  utterly  useless  to  the  army. 

Congress  and  the  commander-in-chief  remonstrated.  The  evil  had  be- 
come incurable.  The  soldiers  whose  term  had  expired  could  not  be  kept 
on  at  any  price  ;  several  withdrew  in  the  middle,  others  at  the  end  of  the 
campaign.  The  enemy  was  always  in  full  force,  while  the  American  Army 
was  almost  insufficient  to  furnish  the  guards  for  our  advanced  posts.  The 
new  recruit  generally  arrived  when  the  operations  of  the  war  were  far  ad- 
vanced. He  arrived  in  a  wretched  condition,  destitute  of  every  article  of 
clothing,  and  utterly  ignorant  of  a  soldier's  duty.  Often  a  third  of  these 
new  levies  was  totally  unfit  for  service  ;  another  third  soon  went  into  hos- 
pital ;  and  the  remaining  third  was  slightly  trained  during  the  time  that  the 
enemy  employed  in  making  his  dispositions. 

In  the  third  campaign  the  government  was  compelled  to  reduce  to  a 
considerable  extent  the  number  of  regiments,  from  inability  to  recruit  them. 
If  the  fate  of  America  could  have  been  decided  in  one  day  by  a  general 
engagement,  it  is  possible  that  the  enthusiasm  of  our  valorous  citizens  might 
have  achieved  a  victory  over  an  army  as  brave  as  it  was  well  disciplined. 
But  a  war  is  seldom  finished  by  one  or  two  battles.  It  is  necessary  to  keep 
the  field,  and  the  hope  of  regaining  advantages  on  another  occasion  tends  to 
prolong  the  operations  of  the  war. 

The  citizen  who  had  braved  death  at  Bunker  Hill  could  not  resist  the 
desire  to  see  his  family  and  take  charge  of  his  household.  The  hero  in  the 
battle  of  to-day  became  a  deserter  to-morrow,  perfectly  confident  that  he 
was  not  guilty  of  any  impropriety.  "  I  have  had  my  turn,"  he  used  to  say  ; 
"  I  have  fought  bravely,  let  my  neighbor  do  likewise.  If  five  hundred  thou- 
sand of  my  fellow  citizens  fire  as  many  shots  at  the  enemy  as  I  have  fired  in 
the  last  battle,  the  enemy  would  be  soon  annihilated,  and  my  country  would 
be  free."  The  neighbor,  animated  by  the  same  sentiments,  puts  on  his  arms, 
joins  the  army,  fills  the  vacancy,  and  asks  nothing  better  than  to  fight  and  dis- 
tinguish himself.      But  a  battle  is  not  fought  every  day.     He  waits  a  week, 


The  Revolution  9 

two,  three,  perhaps  a  month.  He  begins  to  long  to  see  his  family,  his  cabin, 
his  land,  which  requires  his  presence  to  sow  the  crop  or  make  his  harvest. 
He  fears  to  lose  the  produce  of  an  entire  year.  His  anxiety  affects  his  health. 
There  is  nothing  left  for  him  but  to  go  into  hospital  or  go  home.  He  re- 
turns to  require  some  other  neighbor  to  take  his  turn,  and  so  on  indefinitely. 
This  rotation  soon  exhausts  the  village,  but  the  war  is  not  ended,  and  the 
enemy  is  getting  ready  for  another  campaign. 

The  military  establishment  in  1775  consisted  of  three  battalions  of  in- 
fantry from  New  Hampshire,  as  follows  :  those  of  Colonels  Enoch  Poor, 
James  Reed,  and  John  Stark  ;  twenty-seven  from  Massachusetts,  as  follows  : 
Colonels  Daniel  Brewer,  Jonathan  Brewer,  Theophilus  Colton,  Timothy 
Danielson,  Ephraim  Doolittle,  John  Fellows,  James  Frye,  Thomas  Gardner, 
Samuel  Gerrish,  John  Glover,  William  Heath,  Ebenezer  Learned,  Moses 
Little,  John  Mansfield,  John  Nixon,  John  Paterson,  Edmund  Phinney, 
William  Prescott,  Joseph  Reed,  Paul  D.  Sargent,  James  Scammon,  John 
Thomas,  Timothy  Walker,  Artemas  Ward,  Asa  Whitcomb,  Benjamin  Wood- 
bridge  ;  three  from  Rhode  Island,  as  follows  :  Colonels  Thomas  Church, 
Daniel  Hitchcock,  James  Varnum  ;  eight  from  Connecticut,  as  follows  : 
Colonels  Benjamin  Hinman,  Jedediah  Huntington,  Samuel  H.  Parsons, 
Israel  Putnam,  Joseph  Spencer,  David  Waterbury,  David  Wooster,  Charles 
Webb  ;  four  from  New  York,  as  follows  :  Colonels  James  Clinton,  James 
Holmes,  Alexander  McDougall,  Gosen  Van  Schaick  ;  two  from  New  Jersey, 
as  follows:  Colonels  William  Alexander  and  William  Maxwell;  two  from  Penn- 
sylvania, as  follows:  Colonels  John  Bull  and  William  Thompson;  two  from 
North  Carolina,  as  follows  :  Colonels  Robert  Howe  and  James  Moore  ;  and 
two  from  South  Carolina,  as  follows  :  Colonels  Christopher  Gadsden  and 
William  Moultrie.  There  was  also,  besides  these  fifty-four  battalions  of  in- 
fantry, one  artillery  regiment  from  Massachusetts  under  command  of 
Colonels  Joseph  Gridley  and  Henry  Knox. 

The  infantry  establishment  of  1776  consisted  of  twenty-seven  regiments 
of  "  Continentals  "  so-called,  composed  of  one  regiment  from  Pennsylvania : 
the  1st,  under  Colonel  William  Thompson  ;  three  from  New  Hampshire  : 
the  2d,  Colonel  James  Reed  ;  5th,  Colonel  John  Stark  ;  8th,  Colonel  Enoch 
Poor  ;  sixteen  from  Massachusetts  :  the  3d,  Colonel  Ebenezer  Learned  ;  4th, 
Colonels  John  Nixon  and  Thomas  Nixon  ;  6th,  Colonel  Asa  Whitcomb  ; 
7th,  Colonel  William  Prescott ;  12th,  Colonel  Moses  Little  ;  13th,  Colonel 
Joseph  Reed  ;  14th,  Colonel  John  Glover  ;  15th,  Colonel  John  Paterson  ; 
16th,  Colonel  Paul  D.  Sargent  ;  18th,  Colonel  Edmund  Phinney  ;  21st, 
Colonel  Jonathan  Ward  ;  23d,  Colonel  John  Bailey  ;  24th,  Colonel  John 
Greaton  ;  25th,  Colonel  William  Bond  ;  26th,  Colonel  Loammi  Baldwin  ; 
27th,  Colonel  Israel  Hutchinson  ;  two  from  Rhode  Island  :  9th,  Colonel 
James  Varnum  ;  nth,  Colonel  Daniel  Hitchcock  ;  and  five  from  Connecti- 
cut :  10th,  Colonels  Samuel  H.  Parsons  and  John  Tyler;  17th,  Colonel 
Jedediah  Huntington  ;  19th,  Colonel  Charles  Webb ;  20th,  Colonels  Benedict 


io  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Arnold  and  John  Durkee  ;  22d,  Colonel  Samuel  Wyllys.  There  were  also 
an  additional  regiment  from  New  Hampshire,  Colonel  Seth  Warner's,  and 
one  from  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  Colonel  Nicholas  Hausegger's,  both 
afterwards  included  in  the  sixteen  additional  regiments  raised  under  resolve 
of  Congress  of  27th  December,  1776.  Besides  the  Continental  Line  of  1776, 
the  following  States  also  furnished  Continental  troops  in  that  year  :  New  York 
Line,  five  regiments  :  1st,  Colonels  Rudolphus  Ritzema  and  Gosen  Van 
Schaick  ;  2d,  Colonels  G.  Van  Schaick  and  James  Clinton  ;  3d,  Colonels  James 
Clinton,  Rudolphus  Ritzema,  and  Peter  Gansevoort  ;  4th,  Colonels  Cornelius 
Wynkoop  and  Henry  Livingston  ;  5th,  Colonel  Lewis  Dubois  ;  New  Jersey 
Line,  four  regiments  :  1st,  Colonels  William  Alexander,  William  Winds,  and 
Silas  Newcomb  ;  2d,  Colonels  William  Maxwell  and  Israel  Shreve  ;  3d, 
Colonel  Elias  Dayton  ;  4th,  Colonels  Ephraim  Martin  and  David  Brearley 
(Lieutenant-Colonel);  Pennsylvania  Line,  seven  battalions:  1st,  Colonel  John 
P.  De  Haas;  2d, Colonels  Arthur  St.Clair  and  Joseph  Wood;  3d,Colonels  John 
Shee  and  Lambert  Cadwallader  ;  4th,  Colonel  Anthony  Wayne  ;  5th,  Colonel 
Robert  Magaw  ;  6th,  Colonel  William  Irvine  ;  7th,  Colonel  Samuel  Miles, 
Rifle  Battalion;  and  five  additional  regiments  :  8th,  Colonel  ^EneasMackay  ; 
9th,  Colonel  James  Irvine  ;  10th,  Colonel  Joseph  Penrose;  nth,  Colonel 
Richard  Humpton  ;  12th,  Colonel  William  Cook  ;  Delaware  Line,  one  regi- 
ment: Colonel  John  Haslet;  Maryland  Line,  seven  regiments  :  1st,  Colonels 
William  Smallwood  and  Francis  Ware  ;  2d,  Colonel  Thomas  Price  ;  3d, 
Colonel  Mordecai  Gist ;  4th,  Colonel  Josiah  C.  Hall  ;  5th,  Colonel  William 
Richardson  ;  6th,  Colonel  Otho  H.  Williams  ;  7th,  Colonel  John  Gunby  ; 
Virginia  Line,  fifteen  regiments  :  1st,  Colonel  James  Reed  ;  2d,  Colonel 
William  Woodford  ;  3d,  Colonels  Hugh  Mercer  and  George  Weedon  ;  4th, 
Colonels  Adam  Stephen  and  Thomas  Elliott  ;  5th,  Colonels  William  Peachy 
and  Charles  Scott  ;  6th,  Colonel  Mordecai  Buckner  ;  7th,  Colonels  William 
Dangerfield  and  William  Crawford  ;  8th,  Colonel  Peter  Muhlenberg  ;  9th, 
Colonels  Charles  Fleming  and  Isaac  Reed  ;  10th,  Colonel  Edward  Stevens  ; 
nth,  Colonel  Daniel  Morgan  ;  12th,  Colonel  James  Wood;  13th,  Colonel 
William  Russell ;  14th,  Colonel  Charles  Lewis  ;  15th,  Colonel  David  Mason  ; 
North  Carolina  Line,  nine  regiments  :  1st,  Colonels  James  Moore  and  Francis 
Nash  ;  2d,  Colonels  Robert  Howe  and  Alexander  Martin  ;  3d,  Colonel 
Jethro  Sumner  ;  4th,  Colonel  Thomas  Polk  ;  5th,  Colonel  John  A.  Lilling- 
ton  ;  6th,  Colonel  Edward  Buncombe  ;  7th,  Colonel  James  Hogan  ;  8th, 
Colonel  James  Armstrong  ;  9th,  Colonel  Abraham  Shephard  ;  South  Caro- 
lina Line,  five  regiments  :  1st,  Colonels  Christopher  Gadsden  and  Charles  C. 
Pinckney  ;  2d,  Colonels  William  Moultrie  and  Isaac   Motte  ;  3d,  Colonel 

William   Thompson  ;    4th,  ;    5th,   Colonel   Isaac 

Huger  ;  Georgia  Line,  two  regiments  :  1st,  Colonel  Lachlan  Mcintosh  ;  2d, 
Colonel  Joseph  Habersham.  Besides  these  eighty-nine  regiments  of  infantry 
there  were  two  artillery  regiments  :  Colonels  Richard  Gridley  and  Henry 
Knox's  Massachusetts  Artillery  and   Colonel  Charles  Harrison's  Virginia 


The  Revolution  n 

Artillery.  There  was  also  a  regiment  of  light  horse  organized  in  Connecticut 
by  Colonel  Elisha  Sheldon. 

In  1777  the  New  Hampshire  Line  contained  three  regiments  under 
Colonels  John  Stark  and  Joseph  Cilley,  Enoch  Poor,  and  Alexander 
Scammell  ;  the  Massachusetts  Line,  sixteen,  under  Colonels  Joseph  Vose, 
John  Bailey,  John  Greaton,  William  Shepard,  Rufus  Putnam,  Thomas 
Nixon,  Ichabod  Allen,  Michael  Jackson,  James  Wesson,  Thomas  Marshall, 
Ebenezer  Francis  and  Samuel  Carlton  (Lieutenant-Colonel),  Edward 
Wigglesworth,  Gamaliel  Bradford,  and  Timothy  Bigelow  ;  the  Rhode  Island 
Line,  two,  under  Colonels  Christopher  Greene  and  Israel  Angell ;  the  Con- 
necticut Line,  eight,  under  Colonels  Jedediah  Huntington  and  Josiah  Starr, 
Charles  Webb,  Samuel  Wyllys,  John  Durkee,  Philip  B.  Bradley,  William 
Douglas  and  Return  J.  Meigs,  Heman  Swift,  John  Chandler  ;  the  New  York 
Line,  five,  under  Colonels  Gosen  Van  Schaick,  Peter  Van  Cortland,  Peter 
Gansevoort,  Henry  B.  Livingston,  and  Lewis  Dubois  ;  the  New  Jersey  Line, 
four,  under  Colonels  Mathias  Ogden,  Israel  Shreve,  Elias  Dayton,  and  David 
Rhea  (Lieutenant-Colonel)  ;  the  Pennsylvania  Line,  thirteen,  under  Colonels 
Edward  Hand  and  James  Chambers,  John  P.  De  Haas,  James  Irvine  and 
Henry  Bicker,  Joseph  Wood  and  Thomas  Craig,  Lambert  Cadwallader, 
Francis  Johnston,  Robert  Magaw,  William  Irvine,  ^Eneas  Mackay  and 
Daniel  Brodhead,  James  Irvine  and  Anthony  J.  Morris  and  Richard  But- 
ler, Joseph  Penrose  and  James  Chambers  and  Adam  Hubley  (Lieutenant- 
Colonel),  Richard  Humpton,  William  Cook  and  John  Bull ;  the  Delaware 
Line,  one,  under  Colonel  David  Hall ;  the  Maryland  Line,  seven,  under 
Colonels  John  H.  Stone,  Thomas  Price,  Mordecai  Gist,  Josias  Hall,  William 
Richardson,  Otho  H.  Williams,  and  John  Gunby;  the  Virginia  Line,  fifteen, 
under  Colonels  James  Reed  and  James  Hendricks,  William  Woodford  and 
Alexander  Spotswood,  George  Weedon  and  Thomas  Marshall,  Thomas 
Elliott  and  Robert  Lawson  and  Isaac  Reed,  Charles  Scott  and  Josiah  Par- 
ker, Mordecai  Buckner  and  John  Gibson,  William  Crawford  and  Alexander 
McClanachan,  Peter  Muhlenberg  and  Abraham  Bowman  and  John  Neville, 
Isaac  Reed  and  George  Matthews,  Edward  Stevens,  Daniel  Morgan,  James 
Wood,  William  Russell,  Charles  Lewis,  and  David  Mason  ;  the  North  Caro- 
lina Line,  ten,  under  Colonels  Francis  Nash  and  Thomas  Clarke,  Alexander 
Martin  and  John  Patton,  Jethro  Sumner,  Thomas  Polk,  Edward  Buncombe, 
Gideon  Lamb,  James  Hogan,  James  Armstrong,  John  Williams,  and  Abra- 
ham Shephard  ;  the  South  Carolina  Line,  five,  under  Colonels  Charles  C. 

Pinckney,  Isaac  Motte,  William  Thompson,  (4th),  and  Isaac 

Huger  (5th)  ;  and  the  Georgia  Line,  four,  under  Colonels (1st), 

Samuel  Elbert  (2d), (3d),  and  John  White  (4th).  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  John  Mcintosh  commanded  one  of  the  Georgia  regiments. 

In  1778  there  were  three  infantry  regiments  from  New  Hampshire  under 
Colonels  Joseph  Cilley,  Nathan  Hale,  and  Alexander  Scammell  ;  fifteen 
from  Massachusetts,  all  but  the  nth  under  the  same  colonels  as  in  1777  ; 


12  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

two  from  Rhode  Island,  under  Greene  and  Angell  ;  eight  from  Connecticut, 
with  the  same  colonels  as  in  1777,  with  the  exception  of  the  2d,  in  which 
Zebulon  Butler  succeeded  Charles  Webb,  and  the  8th,  in  which  Giles 
Russell  succeeded  John  Chandler  ;  five  from  New  York,  under  the  colonels 
of  1777  ;  four  from  New  Jersey,  under  the  colonels  of  1777  ;  thirteen  from 
Pennsylvania,  under  the  colonels  of  1777,  with  the  exception  of  the  2d,  in 
which  Walter  Stewart  succeeded  Henry  Bicker,  the  10th,  in  which  George 
Nagel  first,  and  afterwards  Richard  Humpton,  succeeded  to  the  command, 
and  the  nth,  which  was  disbanded  and  its  place  taken  by  Colonel  Thomas 
Hartley's  4th  Additional  Continental  Regiment  ;  one  from  Delaware,  under 
Lieutenant-Colonel  Joseph  Vaughan  ;  seven  from  Maryland  ;  fifteen  from 
Virginia,  under  Richard  Parker  (1st),  Christopher  Febiger  (2d),  William 
Heath  (3d),  Isaac  Reed  and  John  Neville  (4th),  Josiah  Parker  and  Richard 
Russell  (5th),  John  Gibson  and  John  Greene  (6th),  Alexander  McClanachan 
and  Daniel  Morgan  (7th),  John  Neville  and  James  Wood  (8th),  George 
Matthews  and  John  Gibson  (9th),  John  Green  and  William  Davies  (10th), 
Daniel  Morgan  and  Abraham  Buford  (nth),  James  Wood  (12th),  William 
Russell  (13th),  Charles  Lewis  and  William  Davies  (14th),  and  David  Mason 
and  Abraham  Buford  (15th)  ;  North  Carolina,  eight  ;  South  Carolina,  five  ; 
Georgia,  four,  Lieutenant-Colonel  John  Mcintosh  succeeding  to  command 
of  the  3d,  where  he  remained  until  the  close  of  the  war. 

In  1779,  and  thereafter,  of  the  sixteen  additional  regiments  raised  under 
resolution  of  Congress  of  27th  December,  1776,  the  2d  and  3d  (Virginia) 
were  united  under  Nathaniel  Gist  ;  the  4th  (Pennsylvania)  was  designated 
as  the  nth  Pennsylvania  ;  the  5th,  6th,  and  7th  (Massachusetts)  were  united 
under  Henry  Jackson,  and  became  the  16th  Massachusetts  in  1780  ;  the  8th 
and  1 2th  (New  Jersey)  were  united  under  Oliver  Spencer,  and  the  remainder 
seem  mostly  to  have  been  continued  by  their  respective  States  as  additional 
regiments  until  1781.  The  Massachusetts  Line  (fifteen  regiments)  remained 
substantially  intact  until  1781  ;  as  did  those  of  New  Hampshire  (three  regi- 
ments), Rhode  Island  (two  regiments),  and  Connecticut  (eight  regiments), 
until  the  end  of  1780.  Lieutenant-Colonel  Isaac  Sherman  succeeded  Giles 
Russell  in  command  of  the  8th  Connecticut  in  October,  1779  ;  and  the  names 
of  John  Bailey  (in  1780),  Ichabod  Allen  (in  1778),  Samuel  Carlton  (in  1778), 
and  Edward  Wigglesworth  (in  1779)  disappear  as  commanders  of  regiments 
from  Massachusetts.  There  was  no  change  in  the  number  or  commanders 
of  the  five  regiments  of  New  York  from  1778  to  1781,  excepting  in  the 
case  of  the  5th,  where  Marinus  Willet  succeeded  Lewis  Dubois  in  December, 
1779.  In  New  Jersey,  the  4th  was  probably  incorporated  with  one  of  the 
additional  regiments  after  1778.  In  Pennsylvania,  Morgan  Connor  succeeded 
William  Irvine  as  commander  of  the  7th  in  May,  1779,  and  he  was  succeeded 
in  January,  1780,  by  Josiah  Harmar  ;  the  12th  and  13th  were  disbanded 
before  the  close  of  1778.  In  Delaware,  Joseph  Vaughan  continued  in 
command  of  the  one  regiment  from  that  State  to  the  close  of  the  war.     In 


The  Revolution  13 

Maryland,  Otho  H.  Williams  was  transferred  to  the  command  of  the  1st  and 
John  Gunby  to  that  of  the  2d,  in  January,  1781  ;  Lieutenant-Colonels  John 
E.  Howard  and  Thomas  Woolford  serving  successively  in  the  5th  up  to  Octo- 
ber, 1779,  under  Colonel  William  Richardson  ;  and  Lieutenant-Colonel  N. 
Ramsay  succeeding  Mordecai  Gist  as  commander  of  the  3d  at  the  beginning 
of  1779.  In  Virginia,  the  12th,  13th,  14th,  and  15th  regiments  were  disbanded 
towards  the  close  of  1778  ;  William  Davies  became  colonel  of  the  1st, 
Abraham  Buford  of  the  2d,  and  John  Gibson  of  the  7th,  in  February, 
1781  ;  the  9th,  10th,  and  nth  having  also  been  disbanded.  In  North  Caro- 
lina there  are  no  returns  from  the  5th,  6th,  7th,  8th,  after  1778.  In  South 
Carolina,  the  2d  regiment  seems  to  have  been  under  command  of  Major 
Isaac  Harleston  after  December,  1778,  the  1st  and  3d  remaining  unchanged 
to  1 781  ;  there  are  no  returns,  lists,  or  rolls  of  the  4th  to  be  found,  but  Isaac 
Huger  continued  as  colonel  of  the  5th  to  June,  1779,  and  the  regiment 
remained  in  service  until  1781.  The  names  of  Colonels  Francis  Marion 
and  David  Hopkins  also  appear  in  orders.  In  Georgia,  the  1st,  2d,  and  3d 
regiments  remained  in  service  to  the  close  of  the  war  ;  the  4th  probably 
not  later  than  1779. 

RETURNS  OF  THE  CONTINENTAL  LINE  REGIMENTS  IN  1 776,  OFFICERS 
AND  RANK  AND  FILE  PRESENT  AND  FIT  FOR  DUTY,  OR  ON 

COMMAND. 

The  following  returns  are  from  the  volumes  of  the  Fifth  Series  of  Ameri- 
can Archives  : 

July,  1776.     Monthly  return  of  forces  in  South  Carolina,  vol.  i.,  p.  632. 

September  27th.  Return  of  Colonel  William  Smallwood's  Maryland 
Regiment,  vol.  ii.,  p.  567. 

October  5th.  Return  of  forces  under  Washington  at  Harlem  Heights, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  907. 

November  9th.  Return  of  the  forces  in  Northern  Department  under 
Gates,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  701,  702. 

December  1st.     Return  of  forces  under  Washington  at  Trenton,  vol.  iii., 

December  22d.  Return  of  the  forces  under  Washington  on  the  banks  of 
the  Delaware,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  1401,  1402. 

continentals  :  8.  Enoch  Poor,  N.  H Nov. 

total.  9.  James  Varnum,  R.  I Oct. 

1.  Edward  Hand,  Pa Oct.  5,  367  10.  Sam'l  H.  Parsons,  Ct Oct. 

2.  James  Reed,  N.  H Nov.  9,  221  II.  Daniel  Hitchcock,  R.  I. .   Oct. 

3.  Ebenezer  Learned,  Mass. Oct.  5,  474  12.  Moses  Little,  Mass Oct. 

4.  Thomas  Nixon,  Mass Oct.  5,  386  13.  Joseph  Read,  Mass Oct. 

5.  John  Stark,  N.  H Nov.  9,  258  14.  John  Glover,  Mass Oct. 

6.  Asa  Whitcomb,  Mass Nov.  9,  308  15.  John  Paterson,  Mass Nov. 

7.  William  Prescott,  Mass.  ..Oct.  5,  318  16.  Paul  D.  Sargent,  Mass... Oct.     5,     398 


9. 

274 

5, 

330 

5, 

448 

5, 

312 

5, 

347 

5, 

424 

5, 

384 

9. 

249 

*4 


The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 


17.  Jedediah  Huntington,  Ct.Oct. 

18.  Edmund  Phinney,  Mass.. Nov. 

19.  Charles  Webb,  Conn Oct. 

20.  John  Durkee,  Conn Dec . 

21.  Jonathan  Ward,  Mass.... Oct. 

22.  Samuel  Wyllys,  Conn Oct. 

23.  John  Bailey,  Mass Oct. 

24.  John  Greaton,  Mass Nov. 

25.  William  Bond,  Mass Nov. 

26.  Loammi  Baldwin,  Mass. .  .Oct. 

27.  Israel  Hutchinson,  Mass.  .Oct. 
Knox's  Artillery Oct. 


TOTAL. 

5,  230 

9.  3oi 

5,  428 

22,  371 

5,  435 

5,  391 

5,  394 

9,  476 

9,  164 

5,  378 

5,  489 

5,  341 

9,896 


NEW  YORK  LINE  : 

1.  Gosen  Van  Schaick Nov.  9,  231 

2.  James  Clinton Oct.  5,  253 

3.  Rudolphus  Ritzema Oct.  5,  338 

4.  Cornelius  Wynkoop Nov.  9,  114 

5.  Lewis  Dubois 

NEW   JERSEY   LINE: 

1.  Silas  Newcomb Nov.  9,  165 

2.  Israel  Shreve. , Nov.  9,  225 

3.  Elias  Dayton Nov.  9,  540 

4.  Ephraim  Martin Oct.  5,  277 

PENNSYLVANIA    LINE  : 

1.  John  P.  De  Haas Nov.  9,  393 

2.  Joseph  Wood Nov.  9,  262 

3.  Lambert  Cadwallader. . .  .Oct.  5,  336 

4.  Anthony  Wayne Nov.  9,  394 

5.  Robert  Magaw Oct.  5,  343 

6.  William  Irvine Nov.  9,  277 

Miles's  Rifle  Regiment. .  .Oct.  5,  105 
Pennsylvania  and  Maryland 

German  Regiment,  Hau- 

segger's  (one  half) Dec. 22,  197 

DELAWARE  LINE  : 

1.  John  Haslet Oct.  5,  479 


MARYLAND  LINE  : 

1.  William  Smallwood Sept.  27, 

2.  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania 

German  Regiment,  Hau- 
segger's  (one  half) Dec.  22, 

VIRGINIA  LINE  : 

1.  James  Read Oct.  5, 

2.  William  Woodford 

3.  George  Weedon Oct.  5, 

4.  Thomas  Elliott Dec.  1, 

5.  Charles  Scott Dec.  1, 

6.  Mordecai  Buckner Dec.  1, 

7.  William  Crawford 

8.  Peter  Muhlenberg July 

9.  Isaac  Reed July  12, 

10.  Edward  Stevens 

11.  Daniel  Morgan 

12.  James  Wood . .      

Harrison's  Artillery 

NORTH   CAROLINA    LINE: 

1.  Francis  Nash July 

2.  Alexander  Martin July 

3.  Jethro  Sumner July 

4.  Thomas   Polk 

5.  Edward  Buncombe 

6.  John  A.  Lillington 

7.  James  Hogan 

8.  James  Armstrong 

9.  John  Williams 

3d  Company  Horse July 

SOUTH   CAROLINA   LINE: 

1.  Christopher  Gadsden July 

2.  William  Moultrie July 

3.  William  Thompson July 

4.  Artillery 

5.  Isaac  Huger July 

6 July 

GEORGIA  LINE  : 

1.  Lachlan  Mcintosh 

2.  Samuel  Elbert 

CANADIAN   REGIMENTS  : 

1.  James  Livingston 

2.  Moses  Hazen 


5io 
263 
184 
313 


357 
306 
342 


36 

326 
392 
414 

297 
299 


These  returns,  complete  for  all  the  New  England  regiments,  show  a  total 
number  in  the  Continental  Line  from  that  section  in  the  fall  of  1776  of  about 
9500  men,  or  an  average  of  353  men  to  each  of  the  twenty-seven  New  Eng- 
land regiments.     The  incomplete  returns  from  the  fifty-two  regiments  outside 


The  Revolution  15 

of  New  England  show  a  total  of  11,004  men  *n  thirty-four  regiments,  an  aver- 
age of  323  men  in  each.  There  are  no  returns  in  the  archives  of  the  War 
Department  from  the  remaining  eighteen  regiments,  but  estimating  that 
they  contained  an  average  of  300  men  each,  or  5400  in  all,  it  would  give  a 
total  effective  force  of  "  Regulars  "  in  the  American  Army,  before  the  loss  of 
Fort  Washington,  of  about  26,000  men,  of  whom  thirty-seven  per  cent,  were 
from  New  England. 

In  the  collections  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania  is  a  folio 
manuscript  volume,  Abstracts  of  Muster-Rolls,  prepared  by  direction  of 
Deputy  Muster-Master-General  William  Bradford,  Jr.,  which  contains  the 
names  of  the  field  officers  and  officers  commanding  companies,  with  the 
strength  of  each  company  and  regiment.  This  invaluable  book,  the  cover  of 
which  is  largely  composed  of  muster-rolls  dated  at  Valley  Forge,  gives  the 
musters  for  the  months  of  June,  July,  August,  September,  and  October  of 
1778,  and  January  of  1779.  The  following  is  the  muster  for  July  of  1778,  as 
it  is  in  a  more  perfect  condition  than  any  of  the  others. 

PARTIAL   ROSTER  OF  OFFICERS    UNDER  WASHINGTON,  JULY,    1 778. 

NORTH    CAROLINA. 

First  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Thomas  Clark  ;  Lieutenant-Colonel,  Ma- 
bane  ;  Major,  Ashe  ;  Captains,  Tatum,  Dixon,  Bowman,  Read,  McRees, 
Moore  ;  commissioned  officers,  26  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates, 
658. 

Second  Regiment. — Colonel,  John  Patten  ;  Lieutenant-Colonel,  Harney  ; 
Major,  Murpee  ;  Captains,  Englis,  Tenner,  Coleman,  Hall,  Armstrong,  Wil- 
liams ;  commissioned  officers,  27  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates, 
647. 

DELAWARE. 

Delaware  Battalion.  —  Colonel,  David  Hall ;  Captains,  Patten,  Anderson, 
Leavmonth,  Kirkwood,  Jaquett ;  Lieutenants,  Wilson,  Powell,  Rhodes  ; 
commissioned  officers,  29  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  351. 

AT    LARGE. 

Lieutenant-Colonel,  Aaron  Burr ;  Captains,  Tom,  Sandford,  Hallet ; 
Lieutenants,  Dove,  Neely  ;  commissioned  officers,  1 1  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-com- 
missioned and  privates,  SS. 

Major,  William  Harrison  ;  Captains,  Wikoff,  Burrows,  Forman,  Combs  ; 
commissioned  officers,  6  ;  staff,  2  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  73. 

Colonel,  Oliver  Spencer  ;  Captains,  Broderick,  Weatherby,  Striker,  Edsell, 
Pierson,  Bommel ;  Lieutenants,  Meiker,  Ogden  ;  commissioned  officers,  14  ; 
staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  157. 


r         At-  Trtc 


fcfrTrtK 


1 6  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

NEW    HAMPSHIRE. 

First  Regiment.  — Colonel,  Joseph  Cilley  ;  Captains,  Taswell,  Scott,  Fry, 
Hutcheson,  Wail,  House,  Emmerson,  Morrell  ;  commissioned  officers,  26  ; 
staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  476. 

Second  Regiment.  —  Major,  Benjamin  Titcomb  ;  Captains,  Drew,  Carr, 
Norris,  Rowell,  Clay,  Blodgett,  Robinson  ;  Lieutenant,  Hardy  ;  commis- 
sioned officers,  27  ;  staff,  3  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  368. 

Third  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Alexander  Scammell ;  Captains,  Livermore, 
Gray,  Weiser,  Fry,  Stone,  McClary,  Bealls,  Ellis  ;  commissioned  officers, 
26  ;  staff,  3  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  333. 

Independent  Corps.  —  Captain,  Selir  ;  commissioned  officers,  5  ;  non- 
commissioned and  privates,  44. 

CONNECTICUT. 

First  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Heman  Swift ;  Captains,  Woodbridge,  Wat- 
son, Hill,  Converse,  Beardsley,  Chapman,  Hale,  Steven ;  commissioned 
officers,  25  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  398. 

Second  Regiment.  —  Lieutenant-Colonel,  Isaac  Sherman;  Captains, 
Parsons,  Beebe,  Manning,  Hinkly,  Betts,  Walbridge,  Mills,  Parker  ;  com- 
missioned officers,  16  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  289. 

Third  Regiment.  —  Major,  David  Sill;  Captains,  Haney,  Troop,  Shum- 
way,  Ely,  Perkins,  Richards,  Darrow,  Home  ;  commissioned  officers,  23  ; 
staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  434. 

Fourth  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Philip  Bradley;  Captains,  Strong,  Lacey, 
Wright,  Sandford,  Prior,  Catlin,  Childs,  Harts  ;  commissioned  officers,  23  ; 
staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  386. 

Fifth  Regiment.  —  Major,  Joseph  Hait ;  Captains,  Monson,  Brown,  Rice, 
Brigham,  Sandford,  Smith,  Comstock,  Mattocks  ;  commissioned  officers,  21  ; 
staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  336. 

Sixth  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  John  Durkee  (two  companies  detached)  ; 
Captains,  Bacon,  Fitch,  McGuire,  Lee,  Webb,  Bile,  Hallam,  Harmar  ;  com- 
missioned officers,  26  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  348. 

NEW    YORK. 

First  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Gosen  Van  Schaick  ;  Captains,  Finch,  Hicks, 
Sherwood,  Hogkish,  Copp,  McCracky,  Graham,  Wendall ;  commissioned 
officers,  28  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  454. 

Second  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Philip  Cortland;  Captains,  Wright,  Ten 
Eyk,  (late)  Graham,  Riker,  (late)  Hallet,  Pell,  Lounsbery  ;  Lieutenant, 
French  ;  commissioned  officers,  23  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  pri- 
vates, 413. 

Fourth  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Henry  Livingston  ;  Captains,  Titus,  Sack- 
ett,  Gray,  Strong,  Smith,  Walker,  Davis  ;  Lieutenant,  Elsworth  ;  commis- 
sioned officers,  20  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  ^8^. 


The  Revolution  17 

RHODE    ISLAND. 

Second  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Israel  Angell ;  Captains,  C.  Olney,  S. 
Olney,  Dexter,  Potter,  Humphreys,  Tew,  Hughes,  Allen  (detachment  of 
Colonel  Green)  ;  commissioned  officers,  27  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned 
and  privates,  469. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

First  Regiment. — Colonel,  James  Chambers  ;  Captains,  Grier,  Buchanan, 
Wilson,  Hamilton,  Simpson,  Doyle,  Craig,  Wilson,  Parr ;  Lieutenant, 
Hughes  ;  commissioned  officers,  25  ;  staff,  2  ;  non-commissioned  and 
privates,  331. 

Second  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Walter  Stewart;  Lieutenant  -  Colonel, 
Henry  Miller  ;  Major,  Murray  ;  Captains,  Marshall,  Ashmead,  Howell, 
Bankson,  Tolbert,  ^Patterson  ;  commissioned  officers,  24 ;  staff,  3  ;  non- 
commissioned and  privates,  437. 

Third  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Thomas  Craig  ;  Captains,  Craig,  Moore,  S. 
Moore,  Butler,  Rees,  Christie,  Holling,  Epple  ;  commissioned  officers,  12  ; 
staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  204. 

Fourth  Regiment.  —  Lieutenant-Colonel,  William  Butler  ;  Captains,  Con- 
nelly, Means,  Burd,  Williams,  McGowan,  Fishburn,  Scull,  Gray  ;  commis- 
sioned officers,  19  ;  staff,  3  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  217. 

Fifth  Regiment. — Colonel,  Francis  Johnston  ;  Captains,  Oldham,  Christy, 
Smith,  McHenry,  Gregg,  Seely,  Potts,  Bond,  Bartholomew  ;  commissioned 
officers,  24  ;  staff,  2  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  300. 

Sixth  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Josiah  Harmar  ;  Captains,  Mouser,  Cruise, 

McCowan,  Waugh,  Humph,  Bower, ;  commissioned  officers,  15  ;  staff, 

5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  194. 

Seventh  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  William  Irvine  ;  Captains,  Bratton,  Wil- 
son, Alexander,  J.  Alexander,  Parker,  Montgomery,  Irwin,  Miller  ;  commis- 
sioned officers,  26  ;  staff,  1  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  201. 

Ninth  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Richard  Butler  ;  Captains,  Bowen,  Irwin, 
Davis,  Henderson,  Grant,  McClelland  ;  Lieutenant,  Bickham  ;  commissioned 
officers,  21  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  210. 

Tenth  Regiment.  —  Colonel,  Richard  Humpton  ;  Lieutenant-Colonel, 
Hubley  ;  Major,  Grier ;  Captains,  Stake,  Lang,  Sample,  Weaver,  Stout, 
Colhoon  ;  commissioned  officers,  22  ;  staff,  3  ;  non-commissioned  and 
privates,  342. 

Twelfth  Regiment.  —  (Late  William  Cook);  Captains,  McElhatton, 
Lincoln,  Patterson,  Bohn,  Miller,  Ruby  ;  commissioned  officers,  9  ;  staff, 
4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  146. 

NEW  JERSEY. 

First  Regiment. — Colonel,  Mathias  Ogden  ;  Captains,  Mead,  Piatt,  Polhe- 
mus,  Longstreet,  Morrison,  Baldwin,  Angell  ;  Lieutenant,  D.  Hart ; 
commissioned  officers,  22  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  532. 


1 8  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Second  Regiment. — Colonel,  Israel  Shreve;  Captains,  Redding,  Hollings- 
head,  Sparks,  Holmes,  Cummings,  Lucy,  one  company  wanting  ;  commis- 
sioned officers,  20  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  365. 

Third  Regiment. — Colonel,  Elias  Dayton  ;  Captains,  Ballard,  Ross, 
Anderson,  Patterson,  Grifford  (vacant),  Cox,  Mott ;  commissioned  officers, 
23  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  473. 

Fourth  Regiment. — Colonel,  Ephraim  Martin ;  Captains,  Anderson, 
Mitchell,  Lyon,  Forman  ;  Lieutenants,  Johnston,  Lloyd,  Barton  ;  commis- 
sioned officers,  19  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  321. 

MARYLAND. 

First  Regiment. — Colonel,  John  H.  Stone ;  Captains,  Gaither,  Rox- 
borough,  Ewing,  Winder ;  Lieutenants,  Smith,  Bruce,  Farnadis,  Peal  ; 
commissioned  officers,  19  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  374. 

Second  Regiment. — Colonel,  Thomas  Price  ;  Captains,  Anderson,  Long, 
Davidson,  Eccleston,  Williams,  Dent,  Dorsey ;  Lieutenant,  Hardman  ; 
commissioned  officers,  16  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  526. 

Third  Regiment. — Colonel,  Mordecai  Gist  ;  Captains,  Smith,  Gist,  Brice, 
Griffiths,  Marbury,  Brooks  ;  Lieutenants,  Armstrong,  Deaver,  Clagett,  Smith  ; 
commissioned  officers,  31  ;  staff,  6  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  461. 

Fourth  Regiment. — Colonel,  Josiah  C.  Hall ;  Captains,  Oldham,  Selman, 
Lansdale,  Goodman,  Burgess,  Smith,  Norwood  ;  Lieutenants,  Reilly,  Smith  ; 
commissioned  officers,  23  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  517. 

Fifth  Regiment. — Colonel,  William  Richardson  ;  Captains,  Hawkins, 
Hardey,  Lynch,  Johnston  ;  Lieutenants,  Hamilton,  Emory,  Hand  ;  Ensign, 
Jones  ;  commissioned  officers,  19  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates, 

457- 

Sixth  Regiment. — Colonel,  Otho  Williams  ;  Captains,  Harris,  Hyres, 
Dobson,  D.  Beal,  Lawrence,  Freeman,  Myle,  Ghislin  ;  commissioned  officers, 
20  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  391. 

Seventh  Regiment. —  Colonel,  John  Gunby ;  Captains,  Jones,  Stull, 
Spyker,  Grost,  Morris,  Bayley,  Anderson  ;  Lieutenant,  Beatty  ;  commissioned 
officers,  23  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  369. 

German  Battalion. — Lieutenant-Colonel,  Ludwig  Weltner ;  Captains, 
Hubley,  Bunner,  Boyer,  Baltzell  ;  Lieutenants,  Cramer,  Rice,  Shugart,  Boyer, 
Meyer  ;  commissioned  officers,  20  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates, 

385- 

VIRGINIA. 

First  Regiment. — Colonel,  Richard  Parker ;  Captains,  Minnes,  Conyng- 
ham,  Lawson,  Lewis  ;  commissioned  officers,  22  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned 
and  privates,  243. 

Second  Regiment. — Colonel,  Christian  Febiger  ;  Captains,  Harrison,  Mc- 


The  Revolution  19 

Calmis,  Taylor,  W.  Taylor,  Willis,  Upshaw,  Holmes,  Parker  ;  commissioned 
officers,  23  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  253. 

Third  and  Seventh  Regiments. — Lieutenant-Colonel,  William  Heath  ; 
Captains,  Young,  Hill,  Blackwell,  Peyton,  Lipscomb,  Powell,  Briscoe ; 
Captain-Lieutenant,  Baylor ;  Lieutenant,  Sayres  ;  commissioned  officers, 
27  ;  staff,  9  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  556. 

Fourth  and  Twelfth  Regiments. — Colonel,  James  Wood  ;  Lieutenant- 
Colonel,  Nevil  ;  Major,  Clark  ;  Captains,  Lapsley,  Still,  Wall,  Kirkpatrick, 
Waggoner,  Croghan,  Bowyer ;  commissioned  officers,  30  ;  staff,  13  ;  non- 
commissioned and  privates,  752. 

Fifth  Regiment. — Colonel,  Joseph  Parks  ;  Captains,  Fowler,  Anderson, 
Colston,  Fauntleroy  ;  commissioned  officers,  23  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned 
and  privates,  182. 

Sixth  Regiment. — Colonel,  John  Gibson  ;  commissioned  officers,  17  ; 
staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  85. 

Ninth  Regiment. — Lieutenant-Colonel,  Burgess  Ball ;  commissioned 
officers,  10  ;  staff,  1  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  53. 

Tenth  Regiment. — Colonel,  John  Greene ;  Captains,  Shelton,  West, 
Stephens,  Mountjoy,  Spotswood,  Blackwell,  Gillison  ;  Lieutenant,  Lamne  ; 
commissioned  officers,  23  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  380. 

Eleventh  and  Fifteenth  Regiments. — Colonel,  David  Meson  ;  Captains, 
Porterfield,  Gregory,  Ree,  Gray  ;  Colonel,  Cropper ;  Major,  Wallace ; 
Captains,  Will,  Johnston  ;  commissioned  officers,  26 ;  staff,  10 ;  non- 
commissioned and  privates,  584. 

Fourteenth  Regiment. — Colonel,  William  Davis ;  Captains,  Conway, 
Reid,  Robert,  Winston,  Overton,  Marks,  Jones,  Thweat  ;  commissioned 
officers,  26  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  390. 

First  State  Regiment. — Colonel,  George  Gibson  ;  Captains,  Brown,  Hamil- 
ton, Ewell,  T.  Ewell,  Shields,  Valentine,  Armistead,  Crump,  Hoffler,  Nicholas; 
commissioned  officers,  29  ;  staff,  4 ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  329. 

Second  State  Regiment. — Colonel,  Gregory  Smith  ;  Captains,  Spiller, 
Dudley,  Talifero,  Quarles,  Busse,  Garnet,  Barnard,  Lewis  ;  commissioned 
officers,  26  ;  staff,  4  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  418. 

At  Large. — Colonel,  John  Parke  ;  Captains,  Bicker,  Prowel,  Keen,  Dennis, 
Grubb,  Redman  ;  commissioned  officers,  16  ;  staff,  2  ;  non-commissioned 
and  privates,  89.     (Captain  McLean's  company  not  mustered.) 

At  Large. — Colonel,  William  Grayson ;  Captains,  Mitchell,  Smith, 
Triplett,  Jones,  Moore,  McGuire,  Smallwood,  Willis,  (late)  Grant ;  commis- 
sioned officers,  17  ;  staff,  3  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  189. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

First  Regiment. — Colonel,  Thomas  Marshall ;  Captains,  Wolcut,  Soper, 
Warner,  Marshall,  Smith,  Thomas,  King,  Wales  ;  commissioned  officers,  25  ; 
staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  277. 


20  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Second  Regiment. — Colonel,  G.  Bradford  ;  Captains,  Wadsworth,  Cooper, 
Warner,  Marshall,  Smith,  Thomas,  King,  Wales  ;  commissioned  officers,  22  ; 
staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  311. 

Third  Regiment. — Colonel,  Benjamin  Tupper  ;  Captains,  Thorne,  May- 
bury,  Farnum,  White,  Wheelwright,  Page,  Porter,  Greenleaf  ;  commissioned 
officers,  30  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  342. 

Fourth  Regiment. — Colonel,  Samuel  Brewer  ;  Captains,  Watkins,  Bur- 
bank,  Jenkins,  Merrel,  Stones,  Chadwick,  Donnel,  Brewer  ;  commissioned 
officers,  29  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  313. 

Fifth  Regiment. — Colonel,  James  Wesson  ;  Captains,  Pettengill,  Child, 
Bartlet,  Blanchard,  Cogswell,  Ward,  Dix  ;  commissioned  officers,  22  ;  staff, 
5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  336. 

Sixth  Regiment. — Colonel,  John  Bailey  ;  Captains,  Darby,  Maxwell, 
Drew,  Alden,  Dunham,  Burr,  Allen,  Warren  ;  commissioned  officers,  24  ; 
staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  384. 

Seventh  Regiment. — Colonel,  Michael  Jackson  ;  Captains,  Keith, 
Burnam,  Brown,  Varnum,  Wiley,  Cleveland,  Eb.  Cleveland,  Bancroft ; 
commissioned  officers,  25  ;  staff,  4;   non-commissioned  and  privates,  315. 

His  Excellency's  Body-Guard. — Captain,  Gibbs  ;  commissioned  officers, 
4  ;  staff,  1  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  148. 

LIGHT  DRAGOONS. 

Colonel,  Stephen  Moylan  ;  Captains,  Moore,  Plunket,  Hopkins,  Heard, 
Pike,  Gray  ;  commissioned  officers,  15  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and 
privates,  187. 

Colonel,  Theo.  Bland  ;  Captains,  Jones,  Belfield,  Call,  Harrison,  Dan- 
dridge  ;  commissioned  officers,  15  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and 
privates,  165. 

Colonel,  George  Blaylor ;  Captains,  Lewis,  Jones,  Smith,  Cad.  Jones  ; 
commissioned  officers,  15  ;  staff,  6  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  129. 

ARTILLERY. 

Colonel,    Ch.  Harrison  ;  Captains,  Brown,  ,  ,  Dandridge, 

Singleton,  Carter,  Pendleton,  Henry,  Baylop,  Eddens ;  commissioned 
officers,  42  ;  staff,  5  ;  non-commissioned  and  privates,  432. 

Colonel,  John  Crane  ;  Captains,  Burbeck,  Eustice,  Wills,  Trothengha, 
Sergeant,  Treadwell,  Seward  ;  commissioned  officers,  36  ;  staff,  2  ;  non- 
commissioned and  privates,  295., 

Colonel,  John  Lamb  ;  Captains,  Lee,  Jnoa.  Gibb,  Clark,  Randall, 
Porter,  Doughty,  Bauman,  Mansfield  ;  commissioned  officers,  34  ;  staff,  — ; 
non-commissioned  and  privates,  203. 


The  Revolution  21 


SUMMARY. 

New   Hampshire,  total  officers  and  men,  1,3*5 

Massachusetts             "         "  "  "  2,642 

Rhode  Island             "          "  "  "  500 

Connecticut                 "         "  "  "  2,352 


Total  in  New  England  regiments, . 

6,809 

New   York,    total 

officers  and   men, 

i,334 

New  Jersey       " 

i,794 

Pennsylvania      ' ' 

"           "        " 

2,8lt 

Delaware            ' ' 

c«          «         »» 

385 

Maryland           " 

3,689 

Virginia              ' ' 

X                     it                 t* 

4,891 

North  Carolina  " 

l  all  State  regiments, 

1,367 

Total  ir 

23,080 

Artillery, 

1,049 

Light  Dragoons, 

542 

At  Large, 

358 

Grand  total  25,029 

We  can  gain  considerable  knowledge  of  the  American  Army  in  1778  and 
1779  from  the  reports  of  Baron  Steuben,  its  Inspector-General,  some  of 
which,  printed  in  Kapp's  Life  of  Steuben,  can  be  profitably  repeated  at  this 
time  : 

The  effective  strength  of  the  army  was  divided  into  divisions,  com- 
manded by  major-generals  ;  into  brigades,  commanded  by  brigadier-gen- 
erals ;  and  into  regiments,  commanded  by  colonels.  The  number  of  men 
in  a  regiment  was  fixed  by  Congress,  as  well  as  in  a  company  —  so  many 
infantry,  cavalry,  and  artillery.  But  the  eternal  ebb  and  flow  of  men  en- 
gaged for  three,  six,  and  nine  months,  who  went  and  came  every  day,  ren- 
dered it  impossible  to  have  either  a  regiment  or  a  company  complete  ;  and 
the  words  company,  regiment,  brigade,  and  division  were  so  vague  that  they 
did  not  convey  any  idea  upon  which  to  form  a  calculation,  either  of  a  par- 
ticular corps  or  of  the  army  in  general.  They  were  so  unequal  in  their 
number,  that  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  execute  any  manceuvers. 
Sometimes  a  regiment  was  stronger  than  a  brigade.  I  have  seen  a  regiment 
consisting  of  thirty  men,  and  a  company  of  one  corporal !  Nothing  was  so 
difficult,  and  often  so  impossible,  as  to  get  a  correct  list  of  the  State  or  a  re- 
turn of  any  company,  regiment,  or  corps.  .  .  .  General  Knox  assured 
me  that,  previous  to  the  establishment  of  my  department,  there  never  was  a 
campaign  in  which  the  military  magazines  did  not  furnish  from  five  thou- 
sand to  eight  thousand  muskets  to  replace  those  which  were  lost  in  the  way 
I  have  described  above.  The  loss  of  bayonets  was  still  greater.  The 
American  soldier,  never  having  used  this  arm,  had  no  faith  in  it,  and  never 
used  it  but  to  roast  his  beefsteak,  and  indeed,  often  left  it  at  home.  This  is 
not  astonishing  when  it  is  considered  that  a  majority  of  the  States  engaged 
their  soldiers  for  from  six  to  nine  months.     Each  man  who  went  away  took 


22  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

his  musket  with  him,  and  his  successor  received  another  from  the  public 
store.  No  captain  kept  a  book.  Accounts  were  never  furnished  nor  re- 
quired. As  our  army  is,  thank  God,  little  subject  to  desertion,  I  venture  to 
say  that  during  an  entire  campaign  there  have  not  been  twenty  muskets  lost 
since  my  system  came  into  force.  It  was  the  same  with  the  pouches  and  other 
accoutrements,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  I  exaggerate  when  I  state  that  my 
arrangements  have  saved  the  United  States  at  least  eight  hundred  thousand 
French  livres  a  year. 

The  arms  at  Valley  Forge  were  in  a  horrible  condition,  covered  with 
rust,  half  of  them  without  bayonets,  many  from  which  a  single  shot  could 
not  be  fired.  The  pouches  were  quite  as  bad  as  the  arms.  A  great  many 
of  the  men  had  tin  boxes  instead  of  pouches,  others  had  cow-horns  ;  and 
muskets,  carbines,  fowling-pieces,  and  rifles  were  to  be  seen  in  the  same 
company. 

The  description  of  the  dress  is  most  easily  given.  The  men  were  liter- 
ally naked,  some  of  them  in  the  fullest  extent  of  the  word.  The  officers  who 
had  coats,  had  them  of  every  color  and  make.  I  saw  officers,  at  a  grand 
parade  at  Valley  Forge,  mounting  guard  in  a  sort  of  dressing  gown,  made 
of  an  old  blanket  or  woollen  bed-cover.  With  regard  to  their  military  dis- 
cipline, I  may  safely  say  no  such  thing  existed.  In  the  first  place  there  was 
no  regular  formation.  A  so-called  regiment  was  formed  of  three  platoons, 
another  of  five,  eight,  nine,  and  the  Canadian  regiment  of  twenty-one.  The 
formation  of  the  regiments  was  as  varied  as  their  mode  of  drill,  which  only 
consisted  of  the  manual  exercise.  Each  colonel  had  a  system  of  his  own, 
the  one  according  to  the  English,  the  other  according  to  the  Prussian  or 
French  style.  There  was  only  one  thing  in  which  they  were  uniform,  and 
that  was  the  way  of  marching  in  the  manceuvers  and  on  the  line  of  march. 
They  all  adopted  the  mode  of  marching  in  files  used  by  the  Indians. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  correct  statement  of  the  strength  of  the 
southern  army  10  ;  but  without  doing  injustice  to  the  South,  we  may  reason- 
ably suppose  that  matters  stood  much  worse  there  than  in  the  North,  because 
the  South  was  more  divided  in  itself,  and  less  enthusiastic  for  the  cause  of 
Independence.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find,  in  the  Steuben  Papers,  the 
strength  of  the  principal  army  exactly  stated. 

General  Washington's  army,  at  the  beginning  of  the  campaign  of  1779, 
consisted  of  six  divisions,  of  two  brigades  each,  numbering  in  all  11,067 
men  —  forty-six  regiments.  These  regiments  had  from  one  hundred  and 
fifty  (Seventh  Virginia)  to  four  hundred  and  thirty  (Sixth  Connecticut) 
rank  and  file.  Steuben  selected  from  each  regiment,  in  proportion  to  its 
strength,  a  number  of  picked  men,  to  form  eight  light-infantry  companies, 
and  then,  where  they  were  too  weak,  united  the  regiments  into  one  battalion. 
Thus,  the  whole  army  consisted  of  thirty-five  battalions  (9,755  men),  making 
two  hundred  and  seventy-eight  the  average  strength  of  each  battalion,  and 
the  eight  companies  of  light  infantry  before  mentioned  in  addition.  Each 
of  the  latter  had  one  field  officer,  four  captains,  eight  subalterns,  twelve 
sergeants,  and  164  rank  and  file.  The  divisions  were  severally  known  as 
the  Virginia,  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  Connecticut,  Massachusetts,  and 
North  Carolina. 


The  Revolution  23 

FORMATION  OF  THE  ARMY  COMMANDED  BY  HIS  EXCELLENCY  GENERAL 
WASHINGTON,  FOR  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  PRESENT 
CAMPAIGN  [1779]- 

VIRGINIA. 

First  Brigade,  Woolford  [Woodford?]  —  2d  Regiment,  175;  5th  and 
nth,  223  ;  8th,  182  ;  7th,  150  ;  3d  and  4th,  245.     Total,  975. 

Second  Brigade,  Muhlenberg. — 6th,  168  ;  2d  State,  230  ;  Gist's,  153  ; 
1st  State,  209  ;  1st  and  10th,  270.     Total,  1030. 

MARYLAND    AND    DELAWARE. 

First  Brigade,  Smallwood. —  1st,  260  ;  5th,  220  ;  7th,  230  ;  3d,  270. 
Total,  980. 

Second  Brigade,  Guest  [M.  Gist]. —  2d,  280;  6th,  230;  4th,  320; 
Delaware,  220.     Total,  1050. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

First  Brigade,  Irvine. —  1st,  210  ;  7th,  170  ;  10th,  240  ;  2d,  340.  Total, 
960. 

Second  Brigade,  Johnson. —  3d,  260;  6th,  180;  9th,  180;  5th,  240. 
Total,  860. 

CONNECTICUT. 

First  Brigade,  Huntington. —  4th,  184;  8th,  232  ;  6th,  430  ;  3d,  $67;* 
Total,  1 2 13. 

Second  Brigade,  Parsons. — 1st,  289  ;  5th,  220  ;  2d,  206  ;  7th,  295.  Total,. 
1010. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

First  Brigade,  Nixon. —  2d,  224  ;  5th,  263  ;  4th,  313.     Total,  800. 
Second  Brigade,  Learned. —  1st,  277  ;  7th,  212  ;  8th,  248.     Total,  737. 
Pettason's  [Paterson's]  Brigade. —  9th,  192  ;   12th,  184  ;   10th,  179  ;  15th, 
260.     Total,  815. 

NORTH    CAROLINA. 

1st,  328  ;  2d,  298.     Total,  626. 

Return  of  the  number  of  men  enlisted  during  the  war,  and  for  shorter 
periods  in  the  army  under  the  immediate  command  of  His  Excellency 
General  Washington,  December,  1779  : 

1st   Maryland   Brigade 1416 

*d         "  "      1497 

1st  Pennsylvania 12s * 

2d  "  "  ,050 

New  Jersey  "       1297 

New  York  "        1267 

1st  Connecticut     "       1680 

*d      ,      "  "       1367 

Hand's  "       IOS3 

Stark's  " 12 10 

Total,  13,070 


24  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

It  would  appear  from  the  figures  given  in  the  preceding  pages  that  the 
New  England  element  in  the  American  Army,  subsequent  to  the  withdrawal 
of  the  British  from  New  England  territory,  was  under  forty  per  cent,  of  the 
whole  native  force,  or  but  little  more  than  proportionate  to  its  relative  pop- 
ulation. In  like  manner,  it  appears  that  the  leaders  of  the  army  were  no 
less  representative  of  its  true  constitution  than  the  rank  and  file.  Of  Wash- 
ington's twelve  generals  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  Nathan  ael  Greene, 
William  Heath,  Seth  Pomeroy,  Israel  Putnam,  Joseph  Spencer,  John  Sulli- 
van, John  Thomas,  Artemas  Ward,  and  David  Wooster  were  New  Eng- 
land men — Charles  Lee  of  Virginia,  and  Richard  Montgomery  and  Philip 
Schuyler  of  New  York  completing  the  staff.  But  the  majority  of  the  New 
Englanders  dropped  out  of  sight  before  the  conflict  was  fairly  begun  ; 
and  besides  Greene,  the  only  general  officers  from  that  section  who 
achieved  renown  during  the  progress  of  the  war  were  the  Scotch-Irishmen, 
Henry  Knox  and  John  Stark,  and  the  Irishman,  John  Sullivan.  The  New 
England  general  in  command  of  the  forces  on  Long  Island  seems  to  have 
been  relegated  mainly  to  garrison  duty  after  the  retreat  from  that  place,  and 
Benjamin  Lincoln's  campaign  in  the  South  resulted  most  disastrously. 
When  the  army  was  discharged  in  1783,  we  find  that  among  the  fifteen 
major-generals,  New  England  was  represented  by  five  —  Greene,  Heath, 
Putnam,  Lincoln,  and  Knox.  Of  the  remainder,  there  were,  of  Scottish 
descent,  besides  Knox  :  William  Alexander  (N.  J.),  Alexander  McDougall 
(N.  Y.),  Arthur  St.  Clair  (Pa.)  ;  of  English  descent,  in  addition  to  the  four 
first  named  :  Horatio  Gates  (Va.),  Robert  Howe  (N.  C),  William  Small- 
wood  (Md.),  and  William  Moultrie  (?)  (S.  C);  of  French  birth:  Lafayette  and 
Du  Portail ;  and  of  German:  Steuben.  Of  the  twenty-two  brigadiers  at  that 
time — six  from  New  England — there  were  of  Scottish  blood  :  William  Irvine 
(Pa.),  Lachlan  Mcintosh  (Ga.),  John  Paterson  (Mass.),  Charles  Scott  (Va.), 
John  Stark  (N.  H.);  of  Anglo-Scottish:  George  Clinton  (N.  Y.),  James 
Clinton  (N.  Y.),  Edward  Hand  (Pa.),  Anthony  Wayne  (Pa.);  of  French  : 
Isaac  Huger  (S.  C);  of  German  :  Johann  De  Kalb  (France),  Peter  Muh- 
lenberg (Va.);  of  Welsh:  Daniel  Morgan  (Va.),  O.  H.  Williams  (Md.); 
and  of  English  :  Elias  Dayton  (N.  J.),  Mordecai  Gist  (Md.),  John  Greaton 
(Mass.),  Moses  Hazen  (Mass.),  Jedediah  Huntington  (Conn.),  Rufus  Put- 
nam (Mass.),  Jethro  Sumner  (?)  (S.  C),  George  Weedon  (Va.).  Out  of  the 
thirty-seven  names  on  these  two  lists  of  1783,  eleven  were  from  New  Eng- 
land ;  and  of  the  total  list  about  one  half  were  of  English  descent,  while 
two  fifths  were  to  a  large  degree  Celtic  in  their  descent. 

Proceeding  to  analyze  the  list  of  the  other  generals  created  during  the 
Revolutionary  period,  we  further  find  as  of  probable  Scottish  blood  :  John 
Armstrong  (Pa.),  Francis  Barber  (N.  J.),  William  Campbell  (Va.),  George 
Rogers  Clark "  (Va.),  William  Davidson  (N.  C),  John  Douglas  (Conn.), 
James  Ewing  (Pa.),  Robert  Lawson  (Va.),  Andrew  Lewis  (Va.),  William 
Maxwell  (N.  J.),   Hugh  Mercer  (Va.),   James  Moore  (N.  C),  John  Nixon 


The  Revolution  25 

(Pa.),  Andrew  Pickens  (S.  C),  James  Potter  (Pa.),  Joseph  Reed  (Pa.), 
Griffith  Rutherford  (N.  C),  John  Morin  Scott  (N.  Y.),  Adam  Stephen 
(Va.),  Thomas  Sumter  (?)  (Va.),  William  Thompson  (Pa).,  a  total  of  twenty- 
one  ;  of  Welsh  blood  :  John  Cadwallader  (Pa.),  William  Davies  (Va.),  James 
Varnum  (Mass.);  of  French  :  P.  H.  De  Barre  (France),  Philip  De  Coudray 
(France),  A.  R.  De  Fermoy  (France),  John  P.  De  Haas  (Pa.,  Holland- 
French),  Francis  Marion  (S.  C);  of  Dutch:  Nicholas  Herkimer  (N.  Y.), 
Abraham  Ten  Broeck  (N.  Y.),  Philip  Van  Cortlandt  (N.  Y.),  Gosen  Van 
Schaick  (N.  Y.);  of  German  :  Frederic  W.  de  Woedtke  ;  of  Irish  :  Thomas 
Conway  (Ireland),  James  Hogan  (N.  C.),  Stephen  Moylan  (Pa.);  of  Polish  : 
Casimir  Pulaski  (Poland);  and  of  probable  English  descent:  Benedict 
Arnold  (Conn.),  William  Blount  (N.  C),  Philemon  Dickinson  (N.  J.), 
Samuel  Elbert  (Ga.),  John  Fellows  (Mass.),  Joseph  Frye  (Mass.),  John 
Frost  (Maine),  Christopher  Gadsden  (S.  C),  John  Glover  (Mass.),  John 
Lacey  (Pa.),  Ebenezer  Learned  (Mass.),  Thomas  Mifflin  (Pa.),  Francis 
Nash  (?)  (Va.),  William  North  (Maine),  Samuel  Parsons  (Conn.),  Enoch 
Poor  (N.  H.),  James  Reed  (N.  H.),  Gold  S.  Silliman  (Conn.),  Edward 
Stevens  (Va.),  James  Wadsworth  (Conn.),  Joseph  Warren  (Mass.),  John 
Whitcomb  (Mass.),  James  Wilkinson  (Md.),  William  Woodford  (Va.), 
Nathaniel  Woodhull  (N.  Y.),  a  total  of  twenty-five  ;  making  with  the  other 
names  mentioned  in  this  paragraph  a  list  of  sixty-three  names  in  all,  less 
than  half  of  which  are  English,  and  about  one  fourth  from  New  England. 

Taking  all  the  lists  together,  we  have  an  aggregate  of  one  hundred  and 
nine  names,  which  include  practically  all  of  Washington's  generals  ;  and  it 
appears  that  but  thirty-one  of  them  came  from  the  New  England  States,  and 
that  less  than  half  were  of  English  descent — about  sixty  being  non-English. 

An  examination  of  the  lists  of  colonels,  captains,  lieutenants,  and  minor 
commissioned  officers  will  show  a  like  distribution.  The  names  of  2310  of 
those  who  were  in  the  Continental  service  are  printed  in  the  American  State 
Papers,  vol.  iii.,  Military  Affairs,  pp.  529  to  559,  under  the  heading,  "  Sched- 
ule of  the  names  and  rank  of  most  of  the  officers  of  the  War  of  Indepen- 
dence, chiefly  returned  as  belonging  to  the  lines  or  corps  of  the  thirteen 
original  United  States  soon  after  said  army  was  disbanded  in  1783,  arranged 
alphabetically  and  numbered  distinctly  according  to  the  States." 

This  schedule  is  prefaced  by  the  following  communication  to  Congress 
from  the  Secretary  of  War  : 

NINETEENTH  CONGRESS  :    SECOND  SESSION  :    342.      STATEMENT  OF  THE  NAMES 
AND    RANK    OF    THE    OFFICERS   OF    THE    REVOLUTIONARY    WAR,  &C. 

Communicated  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  10,  1827. 

Department  of  War,  January  10,  1827. 
Sir  : 

In  compliance  with  the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  8th  instant,  directing  the  Secretary  of  War  "  to  report  to  their  House 


26  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

the  name  and  rank  of  each  officer  of  the  Continental  army  who  served  to 
the  end  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  and  who  were  by  the  resolution  of  Con- 
gress entitled  to  half-pay  during  life  ;  and  also,  as  nearly  as  practicable,  the 
names  of  the  remaining  officers  and  their  places  of  residence,"  I  transmit 
herewith  a  list  of  the  names  and  rank  of  the  officers  of  the  Revolutionary 
War,  as  complete  as  the  records  of  the  Department  will  furnish,  with  the 
exception  of  foreign  officers.  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  Department  to 
show  which  of  them  "  were  by  the  resolution  of  Congress  entitled  to  half- 
pay  during  life,"  nor  is  it  known  which  of  them  are  still  living,  with  their 
places  of  residence,  except  those  who  are  on  the  pension  list. 
Very  respectfully,  etc., 

James  Barbour,  Secretary  of  War. 
To  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  list  of  names  sent  with  this  report  shows  the  State  to  which  each 
officer  is  credited,  and  the  regiment  to  which  he  belonged.  In  the  final 
years  of  the  war,  with  very  few  exceptions,  the  officers  commanded  troops 
raised  by  their  own  States.  Of  these  2310  officers,  79  were  from  New 
Hampshire,  445  from  Massachusetts,  44  from  Rhode  Island,  254  from  Con- 
necticut, 200  from  New  York,  92  from  New  Jersey,  421  from  Pennsylvania, 
32  from  Delaware,  166  from  Maryland,  337  from  Virginia,  99  from  North 
Carolina,  93  from  South  Carolina,  and  48  from  Georgia.  Less  than  forty  per 
cent,  of  these  were  from  New  England. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  heading  of  the  list  that  these  officers  principally 
belonged  to  the  Continental  Army.  Militia  officers  are  not,  as  a  rule,  men- 
tioned, unless  they  also  served  in  the  Continental  or  State  lines.  As  the 
most  of  the  troops  of  the  Southern  States  did  not  belong  to  the  Conti- 
nental establishment,  but  were  simply  State  militiamen,  their  officers  would 
have  no  place  in  this  list. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  I. 

1  As  early  as  1763-64  we  find  them  mentioned  by  the  name  "  Scotch-Irish  "  in  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  when  one  Nathaniel  Grubb,  a  member  of  the 
Assembly  from  Chester  County  so  denominated  the  Paxtang  settlers.  These  people  had 
petitioned  the  Quaker  government  in  vain  for  protection  from  the  murderous  attacks  of  the 
savages  ;  and  finally,  despairing  of  help  from  that  source,  some  of  them  took  the  law  into 
their  own  hands  and  made  an  indiscriminate  slaughter  of  such  Indians  as  they  could  find 
in  their  neighborhood.  In  denouncing  this  action  to  his  fellow  Quakers,  Grubb  referred  to 
these  settlers  as  "  a  pack  of  insignificant  Scotch-Irish,  who,  if  they  were  all  killed,  could  well 
enough  be  spared."     (See,  William  H.  Egle,  History  of  Dauphin  County,  Penna.,p.  60.) 

Rev.  John  Elder,  also,  in  a  letter  written  from  Paxtang,  under  date  of  February  7, 
1764,  to  Col.  Edward  Shippen,  of  Lancaster,  relative  to  the  killing  of  the  Conestoga 
Indians  in  December,  1763,  says  :  "  The  Presbyterians,  who  are  the  most  numerous  I 
imagine  of  any  Denomination  in  the  Province,  are  enraged  at  their  being  charged  in  bulk 
with  these  facts,  under  the  name  of  Scotch-Irish,  and  other  ill-natured  titles,  and  that  the 
killing  of  the  Conestegoe  Indians  is  compared  to  the  Irish  massacres  and  reckoned  the  most 
barbarous  of  either,  so  that  things  are  grown  to  that  pitch  now  that  the  country  seems 
determined  that  no  Indian  Treaties  shall  be  held,  or  savages  maintained  at  the  expense  of 
the  Province,  unless  his  Majestie's  pleasure  on  these  heads  is  well  known  ;  for  I  understand, 


The  Revolution  27 

to  my  great  Satisfaction  that  amidst  our  great  confusions  there  are  none  even  of  the  most 
warm  and  furious  tempers,  but  what  are  firmly  attached  to  his  Majesty,  and  would  cheer- 
fully risk  their  lives  to  promote  his  service." 

Edmund  Burke,  writing  in  1757,  says  :  "The  number  of  white  people  in  Virginia  is 
between  sixty  and  seventy  thousand  ;  and  they  are  growing  every  day  more  numerous,  by  the 
migration  of  the  Irish,  who,  not  succeeding  so  well  in  Pennsylvania  as  the  more  frugal  and 
industrious  Germans,  sell  their  lands  in  that  province  to  the  latter,  and  take  up  new  ground 
in  the  remote  countries  in  Virginia,  Maryland,  and  North  Carolina.  These  are  chiefly 
Presbyterians  from  the  Northern  part  of  Ireland,  who  in  America  are  generally  called 
Scotch-Irish." — European  Settlements  in  America,  vol.  ii.,  p.  216. 

8  Although  they  came  to  this  land  from  Ireland,  where  their  ancestors  had  a  century 
before  planted  themselves,  yet  they  retained  unmixed  the  national  Scotch  character. 
Nothing  sooner  offended  them  than  to  be  called  Irish.  Their  antipathy  to  this  appellation 
had  its  origin  in  the  hostility  existing  in  Ireland  between  the  Celtic  race,  the  native  Irish, 
and  the  English  and  Scotch  colonists.  Mr.  Belknap  quotes  from  a  letter  of  Rev.  James 
MacGregor  to  Governor  Shute,  in  which  he  says:  "We  are  surprised  to  hear  ourselves 
termed  Irish  people,  when  we  so  frequently  ventured  our  all  for  the  British  crown  and 
liberties  against  the  Irish  Papists  and  gave  all  tests  of  our  loyalty  which  the  government  of 
Ireland  required,  and  are  always  ready  to  do  the  same  when  required." — Parker's  History 
of  Londonderry,  New  Hampshire,  p.  68. 

3 As  against  the  more  or  less  willing  adoption  of  the  name  "Scotch-Irish"  in  the 
middle  of  the  last  century  we  may  contrast  the  following  citations,  gathered  by  Mr.  Thomas 
Hamilton  Murray,  a  more  recent  emigrant  from  Ireland,  who  argues  that  a  man  born  in  a 
stable  must  be  a  horse.     Mr.  Murray  says  : 

"The  colonial  records  repeatedly  mention  the  'Irish,'  not  the  Scotch-Irish.  Cotton 
Mather,  in  a  sermon  in  1700,  says  :  '  At  length  it  was  proposed  that  a  colony  of  Irish  might 
be  sent  over  to  check  the  growth  of  this  country.'  .  .  .  The  party  of  immigrants  remaining 
at  Falmouth,  Me.,  over  winter,  and  which  later  settled  in  Londonderry,  N.  H.,  were  alluded 
to  in  the  records  of  the  general  court  as  '  poor  Irish.' 

"  On  St.  Patrick's  day,  the  Irish  of  Portsmouth,  N.  H.,  instituted  St.  Patrick's  Lodge 
of  Masons.  Later  we  find  Stark's  Rangers  at  Fort  Edward  requesting  an  extra  supply  of 
grog  so  as  to  properly  observe  the  anniversary  of  St.  Patrick. 

"  Marmion's  Maritime  Ports  of  Ireland  states  that  '  Irish  families '  settled  Londonderry, 
N.  H.  Spencer  declares  that  '  the  manufacture  of  linen  was  considerably  increased  by  the 
coming  of  Irish  immigrants.'  In  1723,  says  Condon  '  a  colony  of  Irish  settled  in  Maine.' 
Moore,  in  his  sketch  of  Concord,  N.  H.,  pays  tribute  to  the  '  Irish  settlers'  in  that  section 
of  New  England.  McGee  speaks  of  *  the  Irish  settlement  of  Belfast,'  Me.  The  same 
author  likewise  declares  that  '  Irish  families  also  settled  at  Palmer  and  Worcester,  Mass.' 
Cullen  describes  the  arrival  at  Boston  in  1717  of  Capt.  Robert  Temple,  'with  a  number  of 
Irish  Protestants.'  Capt.  Temple  was,  in  1740,  elected  to  the  Charitable  Irish  Society. 
In  another  place  Cullen  alludes  to  '  the  Irish  spinners  and  weavers,  who  landed  in  Boston 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  18th  century.'      .     .     . 

"Among  those  who  have  been  wrongly  claimed  [as  Scotch-Irish]  are  Carroll,  Sullivan, 
.  .  .  Moylan,  Wayne,  Barry,  .  .  and  .  .  .  of  a  later  period,  .  .  .  Meade  and 
Sheridan.     .     .     . 

"  Of  the  Revolutionary  heroes  mentioned  above,  Charles  Carroll  was  of  old  Irish  stock. 
His  cousin,  John  Carroll,  was  a  Roman  Catholic  clergyman,  a  Jesuit,  a  patriot,  a  bishop, 
and  archbishop.     Daniel  Carroll  was  another  sterling  patriot. 

"The  Sullivans,  James  and  John,  were  also  of  ancient  Irish  stock,  the  name  having 
been  O'Sullivan  even  in  their  father's  time. 

"  Gen.  Knox  and  his  father  were  both  members  of  the  Charitable  Irish  Society,  of 
Boston.      The  General  also  belonged  to  the  Friendly  Sons  of  St.  Patrick,  Philadelphia. 


28  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

' '  Moylan  was  a  brother  of  the  Roman  Catholic  bishop  of  Cork.     .     .     . 

"  Wayne  was  of  Irish  [English]  descent  and  proud  of  his  Irish  lineage.  He  was  an 
active  member  of  the  Friendly  Sons  of  St.  Patrick. 

"  Barry  was  an  Irish  Roman  Catholic." 

(T.  H.  Murray,  in  Appendix  to  Samuel  Swett  Green's  monograph  on  The  Scotch- 
Irish  in  America,  read  before  the  American  Antiquarian  Society  in  Boston,  April  24,  1895.) 

4  The  members  of  this  organization  were  as  follows  :  Isaac  All,  John  Barclay,  Thomas 
Barclay,  William  Barclay,  Commodore  John  Barry,  Thomas  Batt,  Colonel  Ephraim  Blaine, 
John  Bleakly,  William  Bourke,  Dr.  Robert  Boyd,  Hugh  Boyle,  John  Boyle,  John  Brown, 
William  Brown,  General  Richard  Butler,  Andrew  Caldwell,  David  Caldwell,  James  Cald- 
well, John  Caldwell,  Samuel  Caldwell,  William  Caldwell,  George  Campbell,  James 
Campbell,  Samuel  Carson,  Daniel  Clark,  Dr.  John  Cochran,  James  Collins,  John  Connor, 
William  Constable,  D.  H.  Conyngham,  James  Crawford,  George  Davis,  Sharp  Delany,  John 
Donnaldson,  John  Dunlap,  William  Erskine,  Thomas  Fitzsimmons,  Tench  Francis,  Turbutt 
Francis,  Benjamin  Fuller,  George  Fullerton,  Archibald  Gamble,  Robert  Glen,  Robert 
Gray,  John  Greene,  General  Edward  Hand,  William  Hamilton,  James  Hawthorn,  Charles 
Heatly,  George  Henry,  Alexander  Holmes,  Hugh  Holmes,  George  Hughes,  Genl.  William 
Irvine,  Francis  Johnston,  Genl.  Henry  Knox,  George  Latimer,  Thomas  Lea,  John  Leamy, 
James  Logan,  Ulysses  Lynch,  Blair  M'Clenachan,  George  Meade,  James  Mease,  John 
Mease,  Matthew  Mease,  John  Mitchell,  John  Mitchell,  Jr.,  Randle  Mitchell,  William  Mit- 
chell, Hugh  Moore,  Major  James  Moore,  Patrick  Moore,  Col.  Thomas  Moore,  James 
Moylan,  Jasper  Moylan,  John  Moylan,  Genl.  Stephen  Moylan,  John  Murray,  John  M. 
Nesbitt,  Alexander  Nesbitt,  Francis  Nichols,  John  Nixon,  Michael  Morgan  O'Brien,  John 
Patton,  Capt.  John  Patterson,  Oliver  Pollock,  Robert  Rainy,  Thomas  Read,  Genl.  Thomas 
Robinson,  John  Shee,  Hugh  Shiell,  Charles  Stewart,  Walter  Stewart,  William  Thompson, 
George  Washington  (an  adopted  member),  Genl.  Anthony  Wayne,  Francis  West,  Jr.,  John 
West,  William  West,  William  West,  Jr.,  John  White,  Joseph  Wilson.  The  Moylans,  Barry, 
Fitzsimmons,  Leamy,  and  Meade,  all  brave  and  active  patriots,  are  said  to  have  been 
Catholic  Irish,  and  probably  also  were  Bourke,  Connor,  Lynch,  O'Brien,  and  Shee.  The 
others,  with  very  few  exceptions,  were  Scotch-Irish.  When  Robert  Morris  organized  the 
Bank  of  Pennsylvania  in  1780  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  funds  to  keep  the  army  in  food, 
more  than  one  third  of  its  ,£300,000  capital  was  subscribed  for  and  paid  in  by  twenty-seven 
members  of  this  Society.     The  society  is  still  in  existence. 

5  Two  notable  exceptions  were  those  of  the  settlement  of  Luzerne  County  (Wyo- 
ming), Penna.,  by  117  colonists  from  Connecticut  in  1762-63  and  by  196  in  1769;  and 
the  settlement  at  Marietta,  Ohio,  of  the  Massachusetts  colonists  in  1788.  Small  col- 
onies were  also  planted  in  Maryland,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia  by  settlers  from  New 
England. 

6  More  than  sixty  years  ago  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  found  occasion  to  rebuke  an  indiscreet 
exhibition  of  this  same  spirit  in  connection  with  the  early  church  history  of  the  country.  His 
remarks,  at  that  time  so  pertinent  to  the  point  in  question,  have  ever  since  been  so  generally 
applicable  to  the  majority  of  New  England  attempts  at  American  history  that  they  cannot 
be  said  to  have  lost  any  of  their  force  since  1839.  He  says  {Constitutional  History  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  vol.  i.,  pp.  60,  61) : 

••  Nothing  but  a  sectional  vanity  little  less  than  insane,  could  lead  to  the  assertion  that 
Congregationalism  was  the  basis  of  Presbyterianism  in  this  country,  and  that  the  Presbyterian 
Church  never  would  have  had  an  existence,  except  in  name,  had  not  the  Congregationalists 
come  among  us  from  New  England.  The  number  of  Puritans  who  settled  in  New  England 
was  about  twenty-one  thousand.  If  it  be  admitted  that  three-fourths  of  these  were  Congre- 
gationalists, (which  is  a  large  admission,)  it  gives  between  fifteen  and  sixteen  thousand. 
The  Presbyterian  emigrants  who  came  to  this  country  by  the  middle  of  the  last  century, 
were  between  one  and  two  hundred  thousand.     Those  from  Ireland  alone,  imperfect  as 


The  Revolution  29 

are  the  records  of  emigration,  could  not  have  been  less  than  fifty  thousand,  and  probably 
were  far  more  numerous.     .     .     . 

"It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  emigration  of  New  England  men  westward  did 
not  take  place,  to  any  great  extent,  until  after  the  Revolutionary  War ;  that  is,  until  nearly 
three-fourths  of  a  century  after  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  founded  and  widely  extended. 
At  that  time  western  New  York,  Ohio,  and  the  still  more  remote  west  was  a  wilderness. 
Leaving  that  region  out  of  view,  what  would  be  even  now  the  influence  of  New  England 
men  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Yet  it  is  very  common  to  hear  those  who  formed  a  mere 
handful  of  the  original  materials  of  the  Church,  speaking  of  all  others  as  foreigners  and 
intruders.  Such  representations  would  be  offensive  from  their  injustice,  were  it  not  for  their 
absurdity.  Suppose  the  few  (and  they  were  comparatively  very  few)  Congregationalists 
of  East  Jersey  had  refused  to  associate  with  their  Dutch  and  Scotch  Presbyterian  neighbours, 
what  great  difference  would  it  have  made  ?  Must  the  thousands  of  Presbyterians  already  in 
the  country,  and  the  still  more  numerous  thousands  annually  arriving,  have  ceased  to  exist  ? 
Are  those  few  Congregationalists  the  fathers  of  us  all  ?  The  truth  is,  it  was  not  until  a 
much  later  period  that  the  great  influx  of  Congregationalists  into  our  Church  took  place, 
though  they  are  now  disposed  to  regard  the  descendants  of  its  founders  as  holding  their 
places  in  the  Church  of  their  fathers  only  by  sufferance." 

7  The  falsity  of  these  tables  was  first  clearly  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Justin  Winsor,  in  an 
address  delivered  before  the  Historical  Society  of  Massachusetts,  in  January,  1886.  See 
Proceedings  of  that  Society,  Second  Series,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  204-207. 

8  The  backwoodsmen  were  engaged  in  a  threefold  contest.  In  the  first  place,  they  were 
occasionally,  but  not  often,  opposed  to  the  hired  British  and  German  soldiers  of  a  foreign 
king.  Next,  they  were  engaged  in  a  fierce  civil  war  with  the  Tories  of  their  own  number. 
Finally,  they  were  pitted  against  the  Indians,  in  the  ceaseless  border  struggle  of  a  rude, 
vigorous  civilization  to  overcome  an  inevitably  hostile  savagery.  The  regular  British  armies, 
marching  to  and  fro  in  the  course  of  their  long  campaigns  on  the  seaboard,  rarely  went  far 
enough  back  to  threaten  the  frontiersmen  ;  the  latter  had  to  do  chiefly  with  Tories  led  by 
British  chiefs,  and  with  Indians  instigated  by  British  agents. — Roosevelt,  Winning  of  the 

West,  vol.  i.,  p.  276. 

Dr.  Thomas  Smythe  gives  a  careful  statement  of  the  activity  of  Presbyterian  elders  in 
the  War  of  Independence  in  the  province  of  South  Carolina  :  "The  battles  of  the  'Cow- 
pens,'  of  '  King's  Mountain,'  and  also  the  severe  skirmish  known  as  '  Huck's  Defeat,' 
are  among  the  most  celebrated  in  this  State  as  giving  a  turning-point  to  the  contests  of  the 
Revolution.  General  Morgan,  who  commanded  at  the  Cowpens,  was  a  Presbyterian 
elder.  .  .  .  General  Pickens  .  .  .  was  also  a  Presbyterian  elder,  and  nearly 
all  under  their  command  were  Presbyterians.  In  the  battle  of  King's  Mountain,  Colonel 
Campbell,  Colonel  James  Williams  (who  fell  in  action),  Colonel  Cleaveland,  Colonel  Shelby, 
and  Colonel  Sevier  were  all  Presbyterian  elders  ;  and  the  body  of  their  troops  were  col- 
lected from  Presbyterian  settlements.  At  Huck's  Defeat,  in  York,  Colonel  Bratton  and  Major 
Dickson  were  both  elders  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Major  Samuel  Morrow,  who  was  with 
Colonel  Sumter  in  four  engagements,  and  at  King's  Mountain,  Blackstock,  and  other  battles, 
and  whose  home  was  in  the  army  till  the  termination  of  hostilities,  was  for  about  fifty  years 
a  ruling  elder  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  may  also  be  mentioned  in  this  connection 
that  Marion,  Huger,  and  other  distinguished  men  of  Revolutionary  memory  were  of 
Huguenot  .  .  .  descent." — Thomas  Smythe,  Presbyterianism,  the  Revolution,  the  Declara- 
tion, and  the  Constitution,  pp.  32  sea. 

9  Examination  of  Richard  Penn  before  Parliament,  November  1,  1775  : 
"  Q.  What  force  has  the  Province  of  Pennsylvania  received?     A.  When  I  left  Pennsyl- 
vania they  had  20,000  men  in  arms,  imbodied  but  not  in  pay  ;  and  4500  men  since  raised. 
Q.  What  were  these  20,000  ;    militia,  or  what?     A.   They  were  volunteers  throughout  the 
Province.    Q.  What  were  the  4500  ?    A.  They  were  Minute-men,  when  upon  service  in  pay." 


30  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

10  Greene's  army  at  the  battle  of  Guilford  Court-House  (N.  C.),  March  15,  1781,  con- 
sisted of  4243  foot  and  201  cavalry.  It  was  composed  of  Huger's  brigade  of  Virginia  Con- 
tinentals, 778  ;  Williams's  Maryland  brigade  and  a  company  from  Delaware,  630  ;  infantry 
of  Lee's  partisan  legion,  82 ;  total  of  Continentals,  1490.  There  were  also  1060  North 
Carolina  militia,  under  Brigadier-Generals  Butler  and  Eaton  ;  1693  militia  from  Augusta 
and  Rockbridge  counties,  Virginia,  under  Generals  Stevens  and  Lawson  ;  in  all,  2753. 
Washington's  light  dragoons,  86 ;  Lee's  dragoons,  75  ;  Marquis  de  Bretagne's  horse,  40 ; 
total,  201. 

11  Mr.  Reuben  G.  Thwaites,  of  the  State  Historical  Society  of  Wisconsin,  writes  to  the 
author  of  this  paper  as  follows:  "According  to  all  family  traditions,  John  Clark,  great- 
grandfather of  George  Rogers  Clark,  came  to  Virginia,  in  1630,  from  the  southwest  part  of 
Scotland.  According  to  one  tradition,  a  few  years  later,  he  visited  friends  in  Maryland, 
and  married  there  '  a  red-haired  Scotch  woman.'  George  Rogers  Clark  himself  had  '  sandy  ' 
hair  ;  another  tradition  has  it  that  the  woman  was  a  Dane.  Their  one  son,  William-John, 
died  early,  leaving  two  sons,  John  (2)  and  Jonathan.  Jonathan  was  a  bachelor,  and  left  his 
estate  to  his  brother's  son,  John  (3).  One  of  William-John's  daughters  married  a  Scotch 
settler,  McCloud,  and  their  daughter  married  John  Rogers,  the  father  of  the  Ann  Rogers 
who  married  John  Clark  (4),  her  cousin,  and  thus  she  became  the  mother  of  George  Rogers 
Clark.  So  George  Rogers  Clark  had  Scotch  ancestry  on  both  sides  of  the  house." — Samuel 
Swett  Green,  The  Scotch-Irish  in  America. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  SCOTCH-IRISH  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION 

LET  us  now  examine  the  composition  of  the  Continental  Congress  of 
1776,  the  fifty-six  members  of  which  were  the  signers  of  the  Declara- 
tion. So  far  as  can  at  this  time  be  ascertained,  that  body  consisted  of 
thirty-four  of  English  descent,  as  follows  :  John  Adams  (Mass.),  Samuel 
Adams  (Mass.),  Josiah  Bartlett  (N.  H.),  Carter  Braxton  (Va.),  Samuel 
Chase  (Md.),  George  Clymer  (Pa.),  William  Ellery  (R.  I.),  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Pa.),  Elbridge  Gerry  (Mass.),  Lyman  Hall  (Ga.),  John  Hancock 
(Mass.),  Benjamin  Harrison  (Va.),  Thomas  Heyward,  Jr.  (S.  C),  Joseph 
Hewes  (N.  C),  Stephen  Hopkins  (R.  I.),  Francis  Hopkinson  (N.  J.), 
Samuel  Huntington  (Conn.),  F.  L.  Lee  (Va.),  R.  H.  Lee  (Va.),  Arthur 
Middleton  (S.  C),  Robert  Morris  (Pa.),  Lewis  Morris  (N.  Y.),  William 
Paca  (Md.),  Robert  Treat  Paine  (Mass.),  John  Penn  (N.  C),  Caesar  Rod- 
ney (Del.),  Benjamin  Rush  (Pa.),  Roger  Sherman  (Conn.),  Richard  Stock- 
ton (?)  (N.  J.),  Thomas  Stone  (Md.),  George  Walton  (Ga.),  William  Whipple 
(N.  H.),  Oliver  Wolcott  (Conn.),  George  Wythe  (Va.)  ;  eleven  of  Scottish: 
William  Hooper  (N.  C),  Philip  Livingston  (N.  Y.),  Thomas  McKean  (Pa.), 
Thomas  Nelson,  Jr.  (Va.),  George  Ross  (Del.),  Edward  Rutledge  (S.  C), 
James  Smith  (Pa.),  George  Taylor  (Pa.),  Matthew  Thornton  (N.  H.),  James 
Wilson  (Pa.),  John  Witherspoon  (N.  J.)  ;  five  of  Welsh  :  William  Floyd 
(N.  Y.),  Button  Gwinnett  (?)  (Ga.),  Thomas  Jefferson  (Va.),  Francis  Lewis 
(N.  Y.),  William  Williams  (Conn.)  ;  one  of  Swedish  :  John  Morton  (Pa.); 
two  of  Irish:  Charles  Carroll  (Md.),  Thomas  Lynch,  Jr.  (S.  C).  The  father 
of  George  Read  (Del.)  was  born  in  Ireland  and  his  mother  in  Wales  ; 
Abraham  Clark,  of  Elizabethtown,  and  John  Hart,  of  Hunterdon  County, 
both  from  strong  Scottish  settlements  in  New  Jersey,  are  difficult  to  place. 

On  the  whole,  the  Continental  Congress  of  1776  was  a  fairly  representa- 
tive body,  being  two  thirds  English  and  one  third  non-English  ;  although  it 
may  be  observed  that  the  Dutch  of  New  York,  the  Germans  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  the  Huguenots  of  the  South  are  not  represented  by  members  of 
their  own  races.  The  first  two  classes,  however,  were  generally,  and  to  a  con- 
siderable degree  erroneously,  regarded  as  unfavorable  to  the  American  cause. 

A  similar  examination  of  the  membership  of  the  Constitutional  conven- 
tion, which  completed  its  labors  at  Philadelphia,  September  17,  1787,  shows 
a  like  mixed  composition  to  that  of  the  Continental  Congress. 

Of  the  fifty-four  members  representing  the  colonies  in  that  body,  we 
find  that,  besides  Washington,  probably  twenty-nine  of  them  were  English, 
as  follows  :  Abraham  Baldwin  (Ga.),  Richard  Bassett  (Del.),  Gunning 
Bedford,  Jr.  (Del.),  William  Blount  (N.  C),  David  Brearly  (N.  J.),  George 

31 


32  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Clymer  (Pa.),  William  R.  Davie  (N.  C),  Jonathan  Dayton  (N.  J.),  John 
Dickinson  (Del.),  Oliver  Ellsworth  (Conn.),  William  Few  (Ga.),  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Pa.),  Elbridge  Gerry  (Mass.),  Nicholas  Gilman  (N.  H.),  Nathaniel 
Gorham  (Mass.),  Jared  Ingersoll  (Pa.),  William  Johnson  (Conn.),  Rufus 
King  (Mass.),  John  Langdon  (N.  H.),  George  Mason  (Va.),  Thomas 
Mifflin  (Pa.),  Gouverneur  Morris  (Pa.),  Robert  Morris  (Pa.),  William  Pierce 
(Ga.),  Charles  Pinckney  (S.  C),  Charles  C.  Pinckney  (S.  C),  Roger  Sher- 
man (Conn.),  Caleb  Strong  (Mass.),  George  Wythe  (Va.)  ;  twelve  were 
Scottish  :  John  Blair  (Va.),  Alexander  Hamilton  (N.  Y.),  W.  Churchill 
Houston  (N.  J.),  William  Livingston  (N.  J.),  James  McClurg  (Va.),  James 
McHenry  (Md.),  John  Mercer  (Md.),  William  Paterson  (N.  J.),  John  Rut- 
ledge  (S.  C),  Richard  Dobbs  Spaight  (?)(  N.  C),  James  Wilson  (Pa.),  Hugh 
Williamson  (N.  C.)  ;  three  were  Irish  :  Pierce  Butler  (S.  C),  Daniel  Car- 
roll (Md.),  Thomas  Fitzsimmons  (Pa.)  ;  two  French  :  Daniel  Jenifer  (?) 
(Md.),  Henry  Laurens  (S.  C.)  ;  one  German  :  Jacob  Broom  (?)  (Del.)  ; 
George  Read  (Del.)  was  Welsh-English  ;  James  Madison's  ancestry  was 
mixed  —  English,  Welsh,  and  Scottish,  and  that  of  Edmund  Randolph 
(Va.)  English  and  Scottish  ;  John  Lansing  (N.  Y.)  and  Robert  Yates 
(N.  Y.)  were  Dutch,  and  the  descent  of  Luther  Martin  (Md.)  is  uncertain. 

When  the  independent  State  governments  were  formed  after  the  adoption 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  their  governors  chosen,  then,  in 
the  words  of  the  ablest  and  most  recent  historian  of  the  Puritans,1  "  the 
Scotch-Irish  gave  to  New  York  her  first  governor,  George  Clinton.  .  .  .  To 
Delaware  they  gave  her  first  governor,  John  MacKinley.  To  Pennsylvania 
they  gave  her  war  governor,  Thomas  McKean,  one  of  the  signers  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  To  New  Jersey  Scotland  gave  her  war 
governor,  William  Livingston,  and  to  Virginia,  Patrick  Henry,  not  only  her 
great  war  governor  but  the  civil  leader  who,  supported  by  his  Scotch-Irish 
brethren  from  the  western  counties,  first  carried  and  then  held  Virginia  for 
the  cause  of  Independence.  To  North  Carolina  the  Scotch-Irish  gave  her 
first  governor,  Richard  Caswell,  and  to  South  Carolina  they  gave  another 
signer  of  the  Declaration,  Edward  Rutledge,  and  another  great  war  gov- 
ernor in  the  person  of  John  Rutledge.  .  .  .  What  those  men  did  for  the 
cause  of  American  Independence  is  known  to  every  student,  but  their  un- 
English  origin  is  not  so  generally  recognized.  In  the  colonial  wars  their 
section  furnished  most  of  the  soldiers  of  Virginia. 

"  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  in  American  history,  that  of  the  four  members 
of  Washington's  Cabinet,  Knox,  of  Massachusetts,  the  only  New  Englander 
was  a  Scotch-Irishman  ;  Alexander  Hamilton,  of  New  York,  was  a  Scotch- 
Frenchman  ;  Thomas  Jefferson  was  of  Welsh  descent,  and  the  fourth,  Ed- 
mund Randolph,  claimed  among  his  ancestors  the  Scotch  Earls  of  Murray. 
New  York  also  furnished  the  first  chief  justice  of  the  United  States,  John 
Jay,  who  was  a  descendant  of  French  Huguenots  ;  while  the  second  chief 
justice,  John  Rutledge,"  was  Scotch-Irish,  as  were  also  Wilson  and  Iredell, 


OF 

j£alifob^ 

The  Constitution  33 

two  of  the  four  original  associate  justices  ;  a  third,  Blair,  being  of  Scotch 
origin.  John  Marshall,3  the  great  chief  justice,  was,  like  Jefferson,  of  Scotch 
and  Welsh  descent." 

Jonathan  Trumbull,  Connecticut's  war  governor  (the  original  "  Brother 
Jonathan"),  was  descended  from  a  member  of  the  ancient  Scottish  border 
clan  of  Turnbull.4  Archibald  Bulloch,  the  Scottish  ancestor  of  Theodore 
Roosevelt,  was  likewise  the  Revolutionary  Governor  of  Georgia  in  1776-77. 

To  pursue  the  subject  further,  it  appears  that  of  the  twenty-five  Presi- 
dents of  the  United  States  down  to  the  present  time,  less  than  half  the 
number  were  of  purely  English  extraction. 

Of  predominating  English  blood  may  be  counted  Washington,  the  two 
Adamses,  Madison,  William  Henry  Harrison,  Tyler,  Pierce,  Fillmore,  Lincoln, 
and,  perhaps,  Taylor.  Cleveland's  father  was  of  English  descent,  but  the 
name  of  his  mother's  father  (Abner  Neal),  who  was  born  in  Ireland,  indicates 
a  Celtic  origin,  possibly  Scottish.  Benjamin  Harrison  and  Theodore 
Roosevelt  both  had  Scotch-Irish  mothers.  Of  the  remaining  twelve 
Presidents,  Monroe,  Hayes,  Jackson,  Polk,  Buchanan,  Johnson,  Grant, 
Arthur,  and  McKinley  (nine)  have  been  of  Scottish  descent  —  the  last  seven 
largely  Ulster  Scotch.  Jefferson  was  of  Welsh  ancestry  ;  Van  Buren,  Dutch  ; 
and  Garfield  a  mixture  of  Welsh  and  Huguenot  French.  This  list  is  in- 
structive, in  showing  that  one-half  our  Presidents  have  been  to  a  large  ex- 
tent of  Celtic  extraction.  (For  notes  on  the  Genealogies  of  the  Presidents, 
see  Appendix  N.) 

Of  the  great  statesmen  connected  with  the  period  immediately  following 
the  Revolution,  perhaps  the  four  most  eminent  names  are  those  of  Thomas 
Jefferson,  James  Madison,*  John  Adams,  and  Alexander  Hamilton  :  the  first 
of  Welsh  origin,  the  second  and  third  English,  and  the  fourth  Scotch. 
Next  to  these  four  may  be  mentioned  the  names  of  James  Wilson,  the 
Scotsman,  whom  Bancroft  pronounces  to  have  been  the  most  learned  civilian 
of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  than  whom  none  were  more  influential, 
sagacious,  or  far-seeing  ;  John  Jay,  the  French  Huguenot  ;  John  Dickinson, 
the  English  Quaker  ;  Roger  Sherman,  the  English  Connecticut  compromiser  ; 
and  John  Rutledge,  the  Ulster  Scot.  Of  the  members  of  the  Convention 
of  1787,  nine  were  graduates  of  Princeton,  some  of  them  pupils  of  the 
venerable  Witherspoon,  four  were  from  Yale  (including  Livingston),  three 
from  Harvard,  two  from  Columbia  (including  Hamilton),  two  from  Glas- 
gow, one  from  Oxford,  one  from  Pennsylvania  (Williamson),  and  five,  six, 
or  seven  from  William  and  Mary  (including  Blair  and  Jefferson  —  the  latter 
of  whom  had  there  as  his  chief  instructor  Dr.  William  Small,  the  Scottish 
teacher  from  whom  he  imbibed  so  many  of  his  own  liberal  views).6  Of 
the  college-bred  men  in  the  convention,  therefore,  it  would  seem  that 
more  than  half  were  either  of  Scottish  descent  or  educational  training  ; 
and  this  fact  could  not  have  been  without  some  influence  in  the  result  of 
its  deliberations.7 


34  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

So  far  as  their  theories  of  government  went,  it  would  appear  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  convention  were  influenced  more  by  the  French  writers  than  by 
the  English  exemplars.  Montesquieu  was  the  oracle  of  Washington  ;  and 
Madison  and  Jefferson  freely  acknowledged  their  debt  to  Scottish  and  Con- 
tinental influences.  Hamilton's  allusion  to  the  English  system  as  a  model, 
and  his  first  plan  of  an  elective  monarchy,  were  both  alike  repugnant  to 
the  views  of  his  colleagues.  In  the  words  of  Yates,  "  he  was  praised  by 
everybody,  but  supported  by  none." 

The  most  judicial  mind  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  was  undoubt- 
edly that  of  the  Scottish  James  Wilson,  from  Pennsylvania,  the  leader  in  the 
debates.  Madison  has  been  called  the  Father  of  the  Constitution  ;  Wilson 
breathed  into  it  the  breath  of  life.  "  Of  the  fifty-five  delegates,"  says  Mc- 
Master,  "  Wilson  was  undoubtedly  the  best  prepared,  by  deep  and  systematic 
study  of  the  history  and  science  of  government,  for  the  work  that  lay  before 
him."  His  learning  Wilson  had  in  times  past  turned  to  excellent  use,  and 
in  the  Convention  he  became  one  of  the  most  active  members.  None,  with 
the  exception  of  Gouverneur  Morris,  was  so  often  on  his  feet  during  the  de- 
bates, and  none  spoke  more  to  the  purpose.  He  supported  direct  popular 
suffrage  and  a  single  executive.  He  probably  exercised  more  influence 
than  any  other  single  member  in  determining  the  character  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  to  him  is  due  the  honor  of  securing  later  the  ratification  of  that 
instrument  by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  He  clearly  foresaw  and  warned 
his  colleagues  against  the  evils  which  would  and  did  result  from  the  per- 
nicious New  England  principle  of  State  sovereignty — a  principle  that,  not- 
withstanding his  earnest  protests,  was  given  undue  acknowledgment  and 
strength  by  the  Connecticut  compromise.  This  measure  decided  the  ques- 
tion of  representation  in  and  election  to  the  Senate. 

Representing  the  most  democratic  State  in  the  confederation,  Wilson, 
more  than  any  other  one  man  in  that  assemblage,  strove  for  the  adoption  of 
a  purely  democratic  form  of  government,  one  that  would  be  entirely  of  the 
people,  wholly  for  the  people,  and  truly  by  the  people.  Opposed  to  him 
at  times  were  Roger  Sherman,  the  New  England  leader,  John  Dickinson, 
the  Pennsylvania  Quaker  who  spoke  for  Delaware,  Luther  Martin,  the  leader 
of  the  Maryland  delegation,  Alexander  Hamilton,  the  sole  acting  member 
from  New  York,  John  Rutledge,  the  foremost  citizen  of  South  Carolina, 
William  Paterson,  who  voiced  the  sentiments  of  New  Jersey,  and  even 
Edmund  Randolph,  the  eloquent  advocate  of  the  Virginia  Plan. 

Wilson  successfully  refuted  the  arguments  of  his  adversaries,  and  had  his 
judgment  been  followed  in  every  question  as  it  was  in  most  of  them,  the 
least  satisfactory  features  of  our  Constitution  would  have  been  kept  out,  and 
the  Republic  might  have  been  spared  the  loss  of  countless  lives  and  treas- 
ure. From  first  to  last,  he  was  the  chief  opposer  of  the  plan  of  equal 
representation  of  the  States  in  the  Senate,  and  did  everything  in  his  power 
to  procure  the  election  of  senators  by  a  direct  vote  of  the  people.8 


The  Constitution  35 

From  time  to  time  claims  have  been  made  by  overzealous  members  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  that  the  Federal  Constitution  was  modelled  upon 
their  form  of  Church  government  —  a  system  which  requires  each  congre- 
gation to  be  represented  in  the  general  assemblies  of  that  Church  by  delegates 
chosen  by  its  own  congregational  members.'  Evidently  these  claims  are  as 
far  out  of  the  way  in  one  direction  as  are  in  another  the  similar  claims  to 
the  effect  that  our  Constitution  was  copied  from  that  of  England.10  The 
Presbyterian  Church  was  probably  no  more  a  factor  in  forming  the  consti- 
tutional government  of  the  United  States  than  was  the  church  of  the 
Congregationalist,  the  Lutheran,  the  Baptist,  or  the  Quaker.  The  most 
that  can  be  said  to  this  end  is  that  many  men  who  had  been  brought  up 
under  Scottish  ideals  of  freedom  and  duty  took  a  prominent  part  in  the 
Convention  of  1787,  and  that  the  result  of  their  deliberations  bears  a  resem- 
blance to  the  system  of  government  laid  down  by  the  canons  of  the  Scottish 
Church.  This  resemblance  may  result  from  the  fact  that  the  Presbyterian 
form  of  church  government  is  a  mean  between  the  Congregational,  or  Puri- 
tan, plan — which  involves  the  entire  independence  and  sovereignty  of  each 
community,11  and  the  Episcopalian,  or  Cavalier,  plan — which  would  aim  at 
the  centralization  of  power  in  the  hands  of  one  man. 

In  Pennsylvania,  the  opposition  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  came 
chiefly  from  some  of  the  Presbyterians  ;  and  in  Virginia1,  also,  a  large  num- 
ber of  them  stood  behind  Patrick  Henry  in  his  opposition  to  that  instrument. 
At  the  same  time,  it  is  probable  that  if  a  vote  could  have  been  taken  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  it  would  have  shown  many  more  of  its  adherents  favor- 
able to  the  Constitution  than  opposed  to  it.  In  the  Pennsylvania  convention 
held  for  its  ratification,  an  examination  of  the  list  of  delegates  shows  that 
considerably  more  than  one  half  the  number  present  and  voting  were  of 
Presbyterian  proclivities  ;  yet  when  the  final  vote  for  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  was  taken,  but  twenty-three  votes  were  cast  against  it,  and  forty- 
six  in  its  favor.  The  Anti-Federalists  in  the  Pennsylvania  convention  had 
for  their  leaders  in  the  debate  the  three  Scotch  Presbyterians,  Whitehill, 
Findley,  and  Smilie,  who  came  from  the  counties  of  Cumberland,  Westmore- 
land, and  Fayette ;  while  the  Federalists  also  looked  for  leadership  to  the 
two  Scotch  Presbyterians,  Wilson  and  McKean.  The  final  vote  was  as 
follows  : 

Yeas. — George  Latimer,  Benjamin  Rush,  Hilary  Baker,  James  Wilson, 
Thomas  McKean,  William  MacPherson,  John  Hunn,  George  Gray,  Samuel 
Ashmead,  Enoch  Edwards,  Henry  Wynkoop,  John  Barclay,  Thomas  Yardley, 
Abraham  Stout,  Thomas  Bull,  Anthony  Wayne,  William  Gibbons,  Richard 
Downing,  Thomas  Cheyney,  John  Hannum,  Stephen  Chambers,  Robert 
Coleman,  Sebastian  Graff,  John  Hubley,  Jasper  Yeates,  Henry  Slagle,  Thomas 
Campbell,  Thomas  Hartley,  David  Grier,  John  Black,  Benjamin  Pedan, 
John  Arndt,  Stephen  Balliet,  Joseph  Horsfield,  David  Deshler,  William  Wil- 
son,  John   Boyd,   Thomas   Scott,   John   Neville,    John   Allison,   Jonathan 


36  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Roberts,  John  Richards,  F.  A.  Muhlenberg,  James  Morris,  Timothy  Picker- 
ing, Benjamin  Elliott. — Total,  46. 

Nays.  —  John  Whitehill,  John  Harris,  John  Reynolds,  Robert  Whitehall, 
Jonathan  Hoge,  Nicholas  Lutz,  John  Ludwig,  Abraham  Lincoln,  John 
Bishop,  Joseph  Hiester,  James  Martain,  Joseph  Powell,  William  Findley, 
John  Bard,  William  Todd,  James  Marshall,  James  Edgar,  Nathaniel  Bread- 
ing, John  Smilie,  Richard  Baird,  William  Brown,  Adam  Orth,  John  Andre 
Hanna.  —  Total,  23. 

A  very  full  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Pennsylvania  convention 
was  printed  in  1888  by  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  under  the 
title,  Pennsylvania  and  the  Federal  Constitution,  edited  by  John  Bach  Mc Mas- 
ter and  Frederick  D.  Stone.  The  following  statement  from  that  work  (pp. 
21,  22)  may  enable  us  to  comprehend  some  of  the  motives  which  influenced 
the  twenty-three  members  who  comprised  the  opposition  : 

An  examination  of  this  list  reveals  the  fact  that  the  little  band  of  mal- 
contents was  made  up  of  all  the  delegates  from  the  counties  of  Cumber- 
land, Berks,  Westmoreland,  Bedford,  Dauphin,  Fayette,  half  of  those  from 
Washington,  half  from  Franklin,  and  John  Whitehill,  of  Lancaster.  The 
reason  is  plain.  The  constitution  proposed  for  the  United  States  was  in 
many  ways  the  direct  opposite  of  the  constitution  of  Pennsylvania.  The 
legislature  of  Pennsylvania  consisted  of  a  single  house.  The  legislature 
of  the  United  States  was  to  consist  of  two  houses.  The  President  of  Penn- 
sylvania was  chosen  by  the  Assembly.  The  President  of  the  United  States 
was  chosen  by  special  electors.  The  constitution  of  Pennsylvania  had  a 
bill  of  rights,  provided  for  a  body  of  censors  to  meet  once  each  seven  years 
to  approve  or  disapprove  the  acts  of  the  legislature  ;  for  a  council  to  advise 
the  President ;  for  annual  elections  ;  for  rotation  in  office,  all  of  which  were 
quite  unknown  to  the  proposed  constitution  for  the  United  States.  But  the 
Pennsylvania  constitution  of  1776  was  the  work  of  the  Patriot  party  ;  of  this 
party  a  very  considerable  number  were  Presbyterians  ;  and  the  great  Pres- 
byterian counties  were  Cumberland,  Westmoreland,  Bedford,  Dauphin,  and 
Fayette.  In  opposing  the  new  plan  these  men  simply  opposed  a  system  of 
government  which,  if  adopted,  would  force  them  to  undo  a  piece  of  work 
done  with  great  labor,  and  beheld  with  great  pride  and  satisfaction.  Every 
man,  therefore,  who  gave  his  vote  for  the  ratification  of  the  national  consti- 
tution, pronounced  his  State  constitution  to  be  bad  in  form,  and  this  its 
supporters  were  not  prepared  to  do.  By  these  men,  the  refusal  of  the  con 
vention  to  accept  the  amendments  they  offered  was  not  regarded  as  ending 
the  matter.  They  went  back  to  the  counties  that  sent  them  more  determined 
than  ever,  but  failed  to  gain  to  their  side  the  great  body  of  Presbyterians. 

A  perusal  of  the  journal  of  the  Federal  Convention  and  of  the  various  pri- 
vate accounts  of  the  debates  ia  will  sufficiently  indicate  how  far  New  Eng- 
land in  1787  was  behind  the  middle  colonies  and  Virginia  in  its  conception 
of  what  constitutes  a  democracy. 

John  Adams  contended  that  the  English  Constitution  was  the  "  most 
stupendous  fabric  of  human  invention"  {Works,  vol.  iv.,  p.  358),  a  decla- 
ration which  seems  to  have  been  the  source  of  amusement  to  many  of  his 


The  Constitution  37 

contemporaries.13     Thomas  Jefferson  explained  Mr.  Adams's  attitude  on  the 
subject  in  this  way  : 

Adams  had  originally  been  a  republican.  The  glamour  of  royalty  and 
nobility  during  his  mission  to  England  had  made  him  believe  their  fascina- 
tion a  necessary  ingredient  in  government.  .  .  .  His  book  on  the  Ameri- 
can Constitution  having  made  known  his  political  bias,  he  was  taken  up  by 
the  monarchical  Federalists  in  his  absence,  and  on  his  return  to  the  United 
States  he  was  made  by  them  to  believe  that  the  general  disposition  of  our 
citizens  was  favorable  to  monarchy.14 

Even  so  usually  careful  a  reader  as  John  Fiske  fails  to  recognize  fully 
the  various  influences  which  were  at  work  in  the  framing  of  the  Constitution. 
In  seeking  to  present  what  may  appear  to  some  to  be  rather  too  flattering  a 
portrayal  of  the  attitude  and  share  of  the  New  England  delegates  in  the 
deliberations  of  the  convention,  he  follows  John  Adams  in  ascribing  every- 
thing to  the  supposed  influence  of  the  British  Constitution.     Fiske  says  : 

The  most  curious  and  instructive  point  concerning  the  peculiar  execu- 
tive devised  for  the  United  States  by  the  Federal  Convention  is  the  fact  that 
the  delegates  proceeded  upon  a  thoroughly  false  theory  of  what  they  were 
doing.  .  .  .  They  were  trying  to  copy  the  British  Constitution,  modifying 
it  to  suit  their  republican  ideas  ;  but  curiously  enough,  what  they  copied  in 
creating  the  office  of  President  was  not  the  real  English  executive  or  prime 
minister,  but  the  fictitious  English  executive,  the  sovereign.  And  this  was 
associated  in  their  minds  with  another  profound  misconception,  which  in- 
fluenced all  this  part  of  their  work.  They  thought  that  to  keep  the  legisla- 
tive and  executive  offices  distinct  and  separate  was  the  very  palladium  of 
liberty  ;  and  they  all  took  it  for  granted,  without  a  moment's  question,  that 
the  British  Constitution  did  this  thing.  England,  they  thought,  is  governed 
by  a  King,  Lords,  and  Commons,  and  the  supreme  power  is  nicely  divided 
between  the  three,  so  that  neither  one  can  get  the  whole  of  it,  and  that  is 
the  safeguard  of  English  liberty.  So  they  arranged  President,  Senate,  and 
Representatives  to  correspond,  and  sedulously  sought  to  divide  supreme 
power  between  the  three,  so  that  they  might  operate  as  checks  upon  each 
other.  If  either  one  should  ever  succeed  in  acquiring  the  whole  sovereignty, 
then  they  thought  there  would  be  an  end  of  American  liberty. 

.  .  .  But  in  all  this  careful  separation  of  the  executive  power  from  the 
legislative  they  went  wide  of  the  mark,  because  they  were  following  a 
theory  which  did  not  truly  describe  things  as  they  really  existed.  And  that 
was  because  the  English  Constitution  was,  and  still  is,  covered  up  with  a 
thick  husk  of  legal  fictions  which  long  ago  ceased  to  have  any  vitality.  .  .  . 
In  our  time  it  has  come  to  be  perfectly  obvious  that  so  far  from  the  English 
Constitution  separating  the  executive  power  from  the  legislative,  this  is  pre- 
cisely what  it  does  not  do.  In  Great  Britain  the  supreme  power  is  all  lodged 
in  a  single  body  :  the  House  of  Commons.16 

Let  us  examine  these  statements  in  the  light  of  Madison's  and  Hamil- 
ton's elucidation  of  the  same  subject  and  see  if  those  two  delegates — them- 
selves originally  strong  admirers  of  the  English  Constitution— were  really 
so  entirely  ignorant  of  its  distinctions.     On  this  subject  Madison  says : 


38  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

One  of  the  principal  objections  inculcated  by  the  more  respectable  ad- 
versaries of  the  Constitution,  is  its  supposed  violation  of  the  political  maxim 
that  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary  departments  ought  to  be  sepa- 
rate and  distinct.  In  the  structure  of  the  Federal  Government,  no  regard,  it 
is  said,  seems  to  have  been  paid  to  this  essential  precaution  in  favor  of 
liberty.  The  several  departments  of  power  are  distributed  and  blended  in 
such  a  manner  as  at  once  to  destroy  all  symmetry  and  beauty  of  form  ;  and 
to  expose  some  of  the  essential  parts  of  the  edifice  to  the  danger  of  being 
crushed  by  the  disproportionate  weight  of  other  parts.  .  .   . 

The  oracle  who  is  always  consulted  and  cited  on  this  subject  is  the  cele- 
brated Montesquieu.  .  .  .  Let  us  endeavor  in  the  first  place  to  ascertain  his 
meaning  on  this  point. 

The  British  Constitution  was  to  Montesquieu  what  Homer  has  been  to 
the  didactic  writers  on  epic  poetry.  .  .  . 
f        On  the  slightest  view  of  the  British  Constitution,  we  must  perceive  that 
the  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary  departments  are  by  no  means  totally 
separate  and  distinct  from  each  other.  .  .  . 

From  these  facts,  by  which  Montesquieu  was  guided,  it  may  clearly  be 
inferred  that,  in  saying  "  there  can  be  no  liberty  where  the  legislative  and 
executive  powers  are  united  in  the  same  person,  or  body  of  magistrates," 
or  "  if  the  power  of  judging  be  not  separated  from  the  legislative  and  ex- 
ecutive powers,"  he  did  not  mean  that  these  departments  ought  to  have  no 
partial  agency  in,  or  no  control  over,  the  acts  of  each  other.  .  ^.  . 

If  we  look  into  the  constitutions  of  the  several  States,  we  shall  find,  not- 
withstanding the  emphatical,  and,  in  some  instances,  the  unqualified  terms 
in  which  this  axiom  has  been  laid  down,  that  there  is  not  a  single  instance 
in  which  the  several  departments  of  power  have  been  kept  absolutely 
separate  and  distinct.     (James  Madison,  Federalist,  No.  xlvii.) 

It  was  shown  in  the  last  paper,  that  the  political  apothegm  there  ex- 
amined does  not  require  that  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary  de- 
partments should  be  wholly  unconnected  with  each  other.  I  shall  undertake 
in  the  next  place  to  show  that,  unless  these  departments  be  so  far  con- 
nected and  blended  as  to  give  to  each  a  constitutional  control  over  the 
others,  the  degree  of  separation  which  the  maxim  requires,  as  essential 
to  a  free  government,  can  never  in  practice  be  duly  maintained.  (Ibid., 
No.  xlviii). 

Hamilton's  comparison  of  the  executives  under  the  two  constitutions  is 
as  follows  : 

I  proceed  now  to  trace  the  real  characters  of  the  proposed  executive,  as 
they  are  marked  out  in  the  plan  of  the  Convention.  This  will  serve  to  place 
in  a  strong  light  the  unfairness  of  the  representations  which  have  been  made 
in  regard  to  it. 

The  first  thing  which  strikes  our  attention  is,  that  the  executive  author- 
ity, with  few  exceptions,  is  to  be  vested  in  a  single  magistrate.  This  will 
scarcely,  however,  be  considered  as  a  point  upon  which  any  comparison  can 
be  grounded  ;  for  if,  in  this  particular,  there  be  a  resemblance  to  the  king 
of  Great  Britain,  there  is  not  less  a  resemblance  to  the  Grand  Signior,  to  the 
Khan  of  Tartary,  to  the  Man  of  the  Seven  Mountains,  or  to  the  governor 
of  New  York.  .  .  . 

The  President  is  to  be  the  "  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy 
of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the  several  States,  when  called 
into  the  actual  service  of  the  United  States.     He  is  to  have  power  to  grant 


The  Constitution  39 

reprieves  and  pardons  for  offences  against  the  United  States,  except  in  cases 
of  impeachment  ;  to  recommend  to  the  consideration  of  Congress  such 
measures  as  he  shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient ;  to  convene,  on  extraor- 
dinary occasions,  both  houses  of  the  legislature,  or  either  of  them,  and  in 
case  of  disagreement  between  them  with  respect  to  the  time  of  adjournment, 
to  adjourn  them  to  such  time  as  he  shall  think  proper  ;  to  take  care  that  the 
laws  be  faithfully  executed  ;  and  to  commission  all  officers  of  the  United 
States."  In  most  of  these  particulars,  the  power  of  the  President  will 
resemble  equally  that  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain  and  of  the  governor  of  New 
York.  The  most  material  points  of  difference  are  these:  —  First:  —  The 
President  will  have  only  the  occasional  command  of  such  part  of  the  militia 
of  the  nation  as  by  legislative  provision  may  be  called  into  the  actual  service 
of  the  Union.  The  king  of  Great  Britain  and  the  governor  of  New  York 
have  at  all  times  the  entire  command  of  all  the  militia  within  their  several 
jurisdictions.  .  .  .  Second  :  —  The  President  is  to  be  commander-in-chief 
of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States.  In  this  respect  his  authority 
would  be  nominally  the  same  with  that  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  but  in 
substance  much  inferior  to  it.  It  would  amount  to  nothing  more  than  the 
supreme  command  and  direction  of  the  military  and  naval  forces,  as  first 
general  and  admiral  of  the  confederacy  ;  while  that  of  the  British  king  ex- 
tends to  the  declaring  of  war,  and  to  the  raising  and  regulating  of  fleets  and 
armies  ;  all  which  by  the  Constitution  under  consideration  would  appertain 
to  the  legislature.  .  .  .  Third  :  —  The  power  of  the  President  in  respect  to 
pardons  would  extend  to  all  cases  except  those  of  impeachment.  The 
governor  of  New  York  may  pardon  in  all  cases,  even  in  those  of  impeach- 
ment, except  for  treason  and  murder.  .  .  .  Fourth  :  —  The  President  can 
only  adjourn  the  national  legislature  in  the  single  case  of  disagreement 
about  the  time  of  adjournment.  The  British  monarch  may  prorogue  or 
even  dissolve  the  Parliament.  .  .  . 

Hence  it  appears,  that,  except  as  to  the  concurrent  authority  of  the  Presi- 
dent in  the  article  of  treaties,  it  would  be  difficult  to  determine  whether  that 
magistrate  would  in  the  aggregate  possess  more  or  less  power  than  the  gov- 
ernor of  New  York.  And  it  appears  yet  more  unequivocally,  that  there  is  no 
pretence  for  the  parallel  which  has  been  attempted  between  him  and  the 
king  of  Great  Britain.  But  to  render  the  contrast  in  this  respect  still  more 
striking,  it  may  be  of  use  to  throw  the  principal  circumstances  of  dissimili- 
tude into  a  closer  group. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  would  be  an  officer  elected  by  the 
people  for  four  years  :  The  king  of  Great  Britain  is  a  perpetual  and 
hereditary  prince. 

The  one  would  be  amenable  to  personal  punishment  and  disgrace  :  The 
person  of  the  Other  is  sacred  and  inviolable. 

The  one  would  have  a  qualified  negative  upon  the  acts  of  the  legislative 
body  :     The  other  has  an  absolute  negative. 

The  one  would  have  a  right  to  command  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  the 
nation  :  The  other,  in  addition  to  this  right,  possesses  that  of  declaring  war, 
and  of  raising  and  regulating  fleets  and  armies  by  his  own  authority. 

The  one  would  have  a  concurrent  power  with  a  branch  of  the  legislature 
in  the  formation  of  treaties  :  The  other  is  the  sole  possessor  of  the  power  of 
making  treaties. 

The  one  would  have  a  like  concurrent  authority  in  appointing  to  offices  : 
The  other  is  the  sole  author  of  all  appointments. 

The   one   can   confer  no  privileges  whatever  :      The  other  can  make 


40  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

denizens  of  aliens,  noblemen  of  commoners  ;  can  erect  corporations,  with 
all  the  rights  incident  to  corporate  bodies. 

The  one  can  prescribe  no  rules  concerning  the  commerce  or  currency  of 
the  nation  :  The  other  is  in  several  respects  the  arbiter  of  commerce,  and  in 
this  capacity  can  establish  markets  and  fairs  ;  can  regulate  weights  and 
measures  ;  can  lay  embargoes  for  a  limited  time  ;  can  coin  money  ;  can  au- 
thorize or  prohibit  the  circulation  of  foreign  coin. 

The  one  has  no  particle  of  spiritual  jurisdiction  :  The  other  is  the  su- 
preme head  and  governor  of  the  national  church. 

What  answer  shall  we  give  to  those  who  would  persuade  us  that  things  so 
unlike  resemble  each  other  ?  The  same  that  ought  to  be  given  to  those  who 
tell  us  that  a  government,  the  whole  power  of  which  would  be  in  the  hands 
of  the  elective  and  periodical  servants  of  the  people,  is  an  aristocracy,  a 
monarchy,  and  a  despotism.     (Alexander  Hamilton,  Federalist,  No.  lxix.) 

It  is  only  necessary  to  compare  these  statements  with  those  of  Mr.  Fiske 
to  see  that  some  of  our  modern  commentators  on  the  Constitution  have  dis- 
covered a  great  many  more  things  in  that  instrument  than  its  authors  were 
aware  they  had  put  there  when  drafting  it. 

Just  what  were  the  contributions  of  England  to  the  American  Constitu- 
tion, is  somewhat  difficult  to  determine.  There  was  certainly  no  manner 
of  resemblance  in  form  between  the  unwritten  Constitution  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  voluminous  written  instrument  subscribed  at  Philadelphia  by  the 
delegates  from  the  American  colonies  in  September,  1787.  It  is  true,  the 
first  ten  amendments,  proposed  by  Congress  in  1789,  may  be  said  to  consti- 
tute a  Bill  of  Rights,  having  been  adopted  with  that  end  in  view.  In  form 
they  do  bear  an  outward  resemblance  to  those  limitations  upon  kings  which, 
until  recently,  were  regarded  in  England  as  the  foundation  and  chief  bulwark 
of  liberty.  But  the  vital  substance  of  the  ten  amendments  to  our  Constitu- 
tion finds  few  counterparts  in  similar  enunciations  of  the  British  legislature. 
In  this  day  some  of  the  minor  provisions  of  these  amendments,  which  no  doubt 
seemed  vital  to  our  fathers,  appear  to  us  to  be  chiefly  valuable  as  reminders 
of  the  excesses  of  tyranny  from  which  they  had  escaped,  and  of  the  kind  of 
constitutional  government  under  which  those  excesses  had  been  committed. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  adoption  of  the  first  ten  amendments  to  the 
American  Constitution  by  Congress  was  due  chiefly  to  popular  clamor,  and 
not  from  conviction  on  the  part  of  the  legislators  that  they  were  necessary 
in  order  to  complete  the  Constitution.  The  framers  of  the  original  docu- 
ment almost  without  exception  deemed  most  of  the  provisions  of  these  amend- 
ments superfluous. 

The  declarations  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  passed  by  the  English  Parliament 
in  1689  were  as  follows  : 

1.  That  the  pretended  power  of  suspending  of  laws,  or  the  execution  of 
laws  by  regal  authority  without  consent  of  Parliament,  is  illegal. 

2.  That  the  pretended  power  of  dispensing  with  laws,  or  the  execution  of 
laws  by  regal  authority,  as  it  hath  been  assumed  and  exercised  of  late,  is  illegal. 


The  Constitution  41 

3.  That  the  commission  for  erecting  the  late  court  of  commissioners 
for  ecclesiastical  causes,  and  all  other  commissions  and  courts  of  like  nature, 
are  illegal  and  pernicious. 

4.  That  levying  money  for  or  to  the  use  of  the  Crown,  by  pretence  of 
prerogative,  without  grant  of  Parliament,  for  longer  time  or  in  other  manner 
than  the  same  is  or  shall  be  granted,  is  illegal. 

5.  That  it  is  the  right  of  subjects  to  petition  the  king,  and  all  commit- 
ments and  prosecutions  for  such  petitioning  are  illegal. 

6.  That  the  raising  or  keeping  a  standing  army  within  the  kingdom  in 
time  of  peace,  unless  it  be  with  consent  of  Parliament,  is  against  law. 

7.  That  the  subjects  which  are  Protestants  may  have  arms  for  their  de- 
fence suitable  to  their  conditions,  and  as  allowed  by  law. 

8.  That  elections  of  members  of  Parliament  ought  to  be  free. 

9.  That  the  freedom  of  speech,  and  debates  or  proceedings  in  Parlia- 
ment, ought  not  to  be  impeached  or  questioned  in  any  court  or  place  out  of 
Parliament. 

10.  That  excessive  bail  ought  not  to  be  required,  nor  excessive  fines  im- 
posed, nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 

11.  That  jurors  ought  to  be  duly  impanelled  and  returned,  and  jurors 
which  pass  upon  men  in  trials  for  high  treason  ought  to  be  freeholders. 

12.  That  all  grants  and  promises  of  fines  and  forfeitures  of  particular 
persons  before  conviction  are  illegal  and  void. 

13.  And  that  for  redress  of  all  grievances,  and  for  the  amending, 
strengthening,  and  preserving  of  the  laws,  Parliament  ought  to  be  held 
frequently. 

We  have  but  to  read  over  the  amendments  to  the  American  Consti- 
tution and  compare  them  with  the  foregoing  English  Bill  of  Rights  to  per- 
ceive how  much  they  are  opposed,  both  in  letter  and  spirit,  to  the  whole 
theory  and  practice  of  the  science  of  government  as  applied  by  England 
during  the  whole  of  the  eighteenth  and  the  greater  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  In  doing  this  we  realize  that  the  amendments  are  not  so  much 
limitations  restricting  the  operation  of  government  under  the  American  Con- 
stitution as  they  are  eternal  protests  against  a  recurrence  of  the  evils  which 
had  been  suffered  under  the  Constitution  of  Britain. 

The  first  amendment  provides  that — 

Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion. 

Or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech,  or  of  the  press. 

The  absence  of  the  first  of  these  provisions  from  the  constitution  of  Eng- 
land, even  to  this  day,  is  what,  perhaps,  more  than  any  one  thing  else,  led 
to  the  early  and  rapid  British  settlement  of  America,  and  drove  to  its 
shores  such  a  large  proportion  of  the  bravest  and  noblest  of  the  English  and 
Scottish  people.  The  necessity  for  the  second  provision  was  probably  first 
impressed  upon  the  minds  of  Americans  by  the  prosecution,  on  informa- 
tion, of  the  printer,  John  Peter  Zenger,  for  libelling  the  English  governor 
of  New  York  in  1735. 

The  second  amendment  announces  that  "  A  well-regulated  militia  being 
necessary  to  the  security  of  a  free  state,  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and 


42  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

bear  arms  shall  not  be  infringed."  The  English  Bill  of  Rights  permits  only 
those  who  are  Protestants  to  "  have  arms  for  their  defence." 

The  third  amendment  provides  that  no  soldier  in  time  of  peace  shall 
be  quartered  in  any  house  without  the  consent  of  the  owner.  This  cor- 
responds with  a  provision  in  the  English  Petition  of  Rights  passed  by  Par- 
liament and  approved  by  Charles  I.  in  1628.  The  only  provision  in  the 
English  Bill  of  Rights  bearing  on  this  subject  is,  that  a  standing  army  shall 
not  be  kept  within  the  kingdom  without  consent  of  Parliament. 

The  fourth  amendment  relates  to  the  right  of  search  or  seizure,  and 
requires  all  warrants  for  arrest  or  search  to  be  specific,  and  supported  by 
oath.     There  is  no  corresponding  clause  in  the  English  Bill  of  Rights. 

The  fifth  amendment  requires  all  criminal  indictments  to  be  made  by  a 
grand  jury  ;  and  provides  that  no  person  shall  for  the  same  offence  twice  be 
put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb  ;  nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property 
without  due  process  of  law.  The  nearest  corresponding  provision  in  the 
Bill  of  Rights  is  that  contained  in  the  eleventh  clause,  suggesting  "  That 
jurors  ought  to  be  duly  impanelled  and  returned,"  instead  of  being  creatures 
of  the  judge  or  prosecutor. 

The  sixth  amendment  gives  the  accused  the  right  of  a  speedy  trial  before 
witnesses  in  criminal  cases. 

The  seventh  amendment  assures  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  It  appears 
from  Olaus  Wormius  that  this  system  was  first  introduced  into  Denmark  by 
Regnerus,  surnamed  Lodborg,  who  began  to  reign  in  the  year  820,  from 
whom  Ethelred  of  England  is  said  to  have  borrowed  it.  It  was  Henry  II. 
who  brought  into  general  use  in  England  the  trial  by  jury,  afterwards  incor- 
porated in  Magna  Charta  and  confirmed  by  King  John. 

The  eighth  amendment  is  a  counterpart  of  the  tenth  provision  of  the 
English  Bill  of  Rights,  prohibiting  excessive  bail  or  fines,  or  cruel  and 
unusual  methods  of  punishment. 

The  ninth  amendment  states  that  the  enumeration  in  the  Constitution  of 
certain  rights  shall  not  be  construed  as  a  denial  or  disparagement  of  others 
"retained  by  the  people."  This,  of  course,  would  be  an  anomaly  in  the 
constitution  of  a  monarchical  government,  where  all  rights  possessed  by  the 
people  have  first  to  be  granted  by  the  supreme  power,  the  Crown. 

The  tenth  amendment  reserves  to  the  States  and  to  the  people  all  powers 
not  delegated  to  the  general  government. 

A  comparison  of  all  these  amendments  with  the  English  Bill  of  Rights, 
therefore,  shows  that  one  only  out  of  the  ten  is  copied  from  the  charter  of 
British  constitutional  privileges.  Nearly  all  the  amendments  show  in  them- 
selves that  they  were  devised  and  worded  to  meet  conditions  which  were 
either  pertinent  or  peculiar  to  American  life  and  experience.  To  a  large 
extent  they  form  an  embodiment  of  certain  features  of  the  common  law 
as  it  had  been  applied  in  America  to  American  conditions  for  more  than  a 
hundred  years  before  1787.     The  provisions  for  free  speech,  a  free  press, 


The  Constitution  43 

freedom  of  religion,  freedom  to  bear  arms,  freedom  from  unwarranted 
search  or  seizure,  freedom  from  indictment  on  secret  information,  and 
freedom  from  the  usurpation  of  the  people's  natural  rights,  were  all  of 
American  origin.  They  were  attached  to  the  Constitution  because  Americans 
had  learned  by  bitter  experience,  in  the  century  between  the  enactment  of 
the  English  Bill  of  Rights  and  the  adoption  of  the  American  Constitution, 
that  their  absence  from  the  British  charter  led  to  numerous  abuses  and 
perversions  of  justice  on  the  part  of  imported  judges  and  governors. 

In  short,  the  difference  between  the  British  and  the  American  Constitu- 
tions is  a  fundamental  one.  The  former  is  a  concession  of  privileges  to 
the  people  by  the  rulers  :  the  latter,  a  grant  of  authority  by  the  people  to 
the  rulers. 

But  before  leaving  our  original  Scotch  commentator,  let  us  see  just 
what  his  views  were  on  the  question  of  the  kinship  between  the  British  and 
American  Constitutions.  Some  expression  of  these  views  is  to  be  found  in 
No.  lxxxiv.  of  the  Federalist : 

The  several  bills  of  rights,  in  Great  Britain,  form  its  constitution.     .     .     . 

It  has  been  several  times  truly  remarked,  that  bills  of  rights  are,  in  their 
origin,  stipulations  between  kings  and  their  subjects,  abridgments  of  pre- 
rogative in  favor  of  privilege,  reservations  of  rights  not  surrendered  to  the 
prince.  Such  was  Magna  Charta,  obtained  by  the  barons,  sword  in  hand, 
from  King  John.  Such  were  the  subsequent  confirmations  of  that  charter 
by  succeeding  princes.  Such  was  the  Petition  of  Right  assented  to  by 
Charles  the  First,  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign.  Such  also  was  the  declara- 
tion of  rights  presented  by  the  Lords  and  Commons  to  the  Prince  of  Orange 
in  1688,  and  afterwards  thrown  into  the  form  of  an  act  of  Parliament,  called 
the  Bill  of  Rights.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  according  to  their  primitive 
signification,  they  have  no  application  to  constitutions  professedly  founded 
upon  the  power  of  the  people,  and  executed  by  their  immediate  representa- 
tives and  servants.  Here,  in  strictness,  the  people  surrender  nothing  ;  and 
as  they  retain  everything,  they  have  no  need  of  particular  reservations. 
"  We,  the  People  of  the  United  States,  to  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to 
ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  constitution  for  the 
United  States  of  America."  This  is  a  better  recognition  of  popular  rights 
than  volumes  of  those  aphorisms  which  make  the  principal  figure  in  several 
of  our  State  bills  of  rights,  and  which  would  sound  much  better  in  a  treatise 
of  ethics  than  in  a  constitution  of  government. 

While  it  may  be  a  fact  that  the  New  England  members,  and  especially 
the  Massachusetts  members  of  the  convention,  were  imbued  with  the  truly 
English  idea  of  uniting  the  executive  and  legislative  branches  by  making 
the  executive  head  merely  the  creature  of  the  legislature,18  yet  that  this  plan 
was  not  adopted  is  perhaps  due  to  the  efforts  of  those  members  whose  birth 
or  training  had  not  been  such  as  to  bring  them  into  accordance  with  English 
traditions.  The  idea  of  a  representative  form  of  government  was  novel  to  the 
men  from  New  England,  and  contrary  to  their  accustomed  methods  ;  so  that 
from  the  date  of  the  first  gathering  it  took  several  days'  time  to  win  them  over 


44  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

to  it.  James  Wilson,  the  Pennsylvania  Scotsman,  led  in  the  opposition  to  the 
English  and  New  England  plan  of  vesting  the  executive  power  mainly  in  the 
legislature  ;  and  to  say,  as  Mr.  Fiske  does,  that  Wilson  did  not  know  at  what 
he  was  aiming  is  to  belittle  the  intelligence  of  the  convention's  clearest  mind. 

The  chief  contribution  of  New  England  was  the  essentially  English 
suggestion  of  compromise.  The  conditions  under  which  one  of  these  com- 
promises was  made  were  so  unwise,  though  so  characteristic  of  the  typical 
English  commercial  spirit  actuating  its  promoters,  as  to  make  it  a  matter  of 
doubt  whether  on  the  whole  the  evil  consequences  arising  from  the  com- 
promises were  not  greater  than  the  benefits  which  they  secured.  These  con- 
ditions involved  the  demand  for  special  privileges  by  the  shipping  interest  of 
New  England,  and  the  prohibition  of  a  tax  on  exports,  coupled  with  the  recog- 
nition of  the  right  of  the  southern  states  to  continue  for  twenty  years  the 
importation  of  negroes,  and  to  maintain  indefinitely  the  institution  of  slavery. 
A  bargain  was  made  between  the  two  sections,  and  all  three  propositions 
were  carried  by  the  united  votes  of  New  England  and  all  the  southern  states 
save  Virginia. 

Certainly,  the  one  republican  institution  which  forms  the  chief  glory 
and  boast  of  New  England,  that  of  local  self-government,  cannot  be  clearly 
traced  back  to  England.  Where  it  did  originate  is  a  disputed  ques- 
tion. Mr.  Douglas  Campbell,  in  his  inquiry  into  the  origin  of  certain 
American  institutions,  has  traced  the  beginnings  of  many  of  them  to  Holland. 
While  there  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  his  proof  in  the  case 
of  township  organization,17  he  has  at  least  made  it  apparent  that  at  the  time 
the  Pilgrims  left  Holland  that  country  and  its  institutions  were  infinitely 
more  analogous  to  the  government  established  at  Plymouth  than  to  any  like 
institutions  in  England.18  In  concluding  his  review  of  some  of  the  Dutch 
contributions  to  America,  Mr.  Campbell  sums  them  up  as  follows19: 

Such  are  the  leading  institutions,  political  and  legal,  for  which  the 
American  Republic  is  indebted,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  Netherland 
Republic,  itself  the  heir  of  all  the  ages.  Some  of  them,  especially  our 
written  constitutions,  have  been  greatly  improved  upon  ;  but  at  the  time  of 
their  introduction  into  America  few,  if  any,  of  them  could  be  found  in  any 
country  of  Europe  except  the  Netherlands.  Having  completed  our  sketch 
of  their  history,  let  us  now  bring  them  together,  in  order  that  we  may  appre- 
ciate their  combined  importance. 

First  comes  the  Federal  Constitution,  a  written  instrument  as  opposed 
to  the  unwritten  English  Constitution.  Next  are  the  provisions  of  this 
instrument  placing  checks  on  the  power  of  the  President  in  declaring  war 
and  peace,  and  in  the  appointment  of  judges  and  all  important  executive 
officers.  Then  comes  the  whole  organization  of  the  Senate  —  a  mutable  and 
yet  a  permanent  body,  representing  independent  bodies  politic,  and  not  caste 
in  State  and  Church.  After  these  features  of  the  national  system,  but  not  less 
important,  follow  our  State  constitutions,  our  freedom  of  religion,  our  free 
press,  our  wide  suffrage,  and  our  written  ballot.  With  these  come  the  free 
schools,  for  boys  and  girls  alike,  the  township  system  (with  its  sequence 
of  local  self-government  in  county  and  State),  the  independence  of  the 


The  Constitution  45 

judiciary,  the  absence  of  primogeniture,  the  subjection  of  land  to  execution 
for  debt,  and  the  system  of  recording  deeds  and  mortgages.  Added  to  these 
are  our  public  prosecutors  of  crime  in  every  county,  the  constitutional 
guarantee  that  every  accused  person  shall  have  subpoenas  for  his  witnesses 
and  counsel  for  his  defence,  the  reforms  in  our  penal  and  prison  system,  the 
emancipation  of  married  women,  and  the  whole  organization  of  our  public 
charitable  and  reformatory  work. 

Taking  these  institutions  all  together,  is  there  any  cause  for  wonder  that 
they  excite  astonishment  among  modern  English  scholars  and  statesmen 
who,  looking  beneath  the  mere  surface  resemblances  of  language  and 
domestic  habits,  seek  an  explanation  of  the  manifest  difference  between  the 
people  of  England  and  a  people  in  the  United  States  assumed  by  them  to 
be  of  the  same  blood  ?  These  observers,  unlike  some  of  our  American 
writers,  see  plainly  enough  that  our  institutions  are  not  inherited  from 
England,  however  much  we  may  have  of  English  characteristics. 

The  simple  fact  is,  that  the  whole  theory  of  society  and  government  in 
the  two  countries  has  always  been  radically  different.  Under  such  condi- 
tions, it  was  but  natural  that  our  forefathers  should  turn  for  their  precedents, 
not  to  a  monarchy  or  an  aristocracy,  but  to  a  republic  —  a  republic  which 
was  the  beacon-light  of  the  English  Commonwealth,  and  whose  people  were 
our  warmest  unselfish  sympathizers  throughout  the  Revolution,  as  they  also 
proved  themselves  to  the  Union  cause  during  our  late  struggle  for  a  national 
existence. 

The  latest  writer  on  the  subject,  Mr.  Sydney  George  Fisher,  in  his  book 
on  The  Evolution  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  takes  issue  with 
Mr.  Campbell  and  with  all  other  writers  who  attribute  the  origin  of  American 
institutions  for  the  most  part  to  European  influences.  In  an  exhaustive  ex- 
amination of  early  trading  and  colonial  charters  and  laws,  he  presents  a  great 
many  facts  tending  to  prove  that  the  American  system  of  government  is  not 
copied  from  others  at  all,  but  is  the  result  of  a  slow  and  gradual  period  of 
evolution  and  growth  which  took  place  on  this  continent  for  two  hundred 
years  after  1584.  This  is  both  a  philosophical  and  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  our  institutions,  and  Mr.  Fisher's  book  goes  far  toward 
making  the  reader  believe  that  it  is  also  the  true  one.  In  referring  to 
English  sources  of  the  Constitution,  this  writer  says  20: 

After  reading  the  assertions  of  learned  writers  that  our  Constitution  was 
modelled  on  the  British  government  as  it  existed  in  1787,  I  have  sometimes 
turned  to  the  words  of  the  Constitution  to  see  the  resemblance,  and  have 
never  been  able  to  find  it.  As  one  reads  along,  sentence  after  sentence, 
everything  seems  so  un-English  and  so  original  and  peculiar  to  our  own 
locality  that  the  mind  is  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  it  either  grew  up  as  a 
natural  product  of  the  soil  or  was  invented  offhand  —  struck  off  at  a  given 
time,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  says.  I  recommend  to  those  who  believe  in  the 
British  model  theory  to  adopt  this  simple  plan  :  Read  our  Constitution, 
sentence  by  sentence,  from  beginning  to  end,  and  see  how  many  sentences 
they  can  trace  to  an  origin  in  the  British  government. 

I  do  not  deny  that  in  a  certain  sense  it  is  all  English.  ...  I  would 
be  the  last  person  in  the  world  to  dispute  the  Anglo-Saxon  influence  in  our 
civilization.     But  all  this  is  very  different  from  the  dogma  some  wish  to 


46  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

establish,  that  our  Constitution  was  taken  or  copied  from  or  suggested  by 
the  forms  of  the  British  government  as  it  existed  in  1787.  .  .  . 

In  the  first  eleven  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  a  number  of  the 
provisions  about  trial  by  jury  and  freedom  of  speech  were  doubtless  evolved 
from  the  experience  of  the  race  in  England.  But  even  these,  as  already 
shown,  were  worked  out  slowly  and  re-evolved  on  American  soil.  In  the 
body  of  the  Constitution  itself  —  the  political  framework  proper  —  there  is 
little  or  nothing  that  can  be  traced  to  the  forms  of  the  British  government 
as  it  existed  in  1787  or  at  any  other  time  for  hundreds  of  years  previous. 

I  do  not  deny  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  considered  and  dis- 
cusssed  the  forms  of  the  British  Constitution.  But  they  considered  them 
principally,  as  the  minutes  of  their  debates  will  show,  for  the  purpose,  or  at 
any  rate  with  the  result,  of  avoiding  them.  They  were  intelligent  men, — a 
large  number  of  them  were  college-bred,  —  and  they  discussed  the  forms  of 
government  of  all  countries.  They  were  not  unmindful  of  the  example  of 
Holland,  the  democracies  of  Greece,  the  Roman  republic  and  empire,  and 
the  free  republics  of  the  Middle  Ages.  They  took  what  light  they  could 
from  them  all  ;  and  I  think  as  good  an  argument  could  be  framed  to  show 
that  they  were  guided  by  what  they  knew  of  classic  antiquity  as  could  be 
brought  forward  to  prove  that  they  were  guided  by  the  British  Constitution. 

But  the  foundation  for  all  their  final  decisions,  the  basis  which  the  forms 
of  government  in  Europe  merely  illustrated  or  made  more  certain,  was  their 
own  experience  of  nearly  two  hundred  years  with  the  colonial  charters  and 
constitutions  and  the  constitutions  of  1776.  What  they  took  from  England 
went  back  through  that  two  hundred  years,  and  then  not  to  the  British 
government,  but  to  the  forms  of  the  old  trading  charters.  What  had  been 
envolved  from  the  trading  charters  had  been  so  long  with  us  that  it  was 
completely  Americanized,  and  it  was  valued  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion for  that  reason,  and  because  it  had  been  tested  by  two  hundred  years  of 
American  life. 

They  did  not  commit  the  absurdity  of  skipping  those  two  hundred 
years  of  their  history,  or  of  crossing  an  ocean  and  entering  other  countries 
to  copy  constitutions.  .  .  .  They  took  their  own  experience  as  it  was  up 
to  that  date  in  the  place  and  community  for  which  they  were  making  a  frame 
of  government.  They  made  no  skips  or  jumps,  but  went  backward  in  the 
past  directly  from  themselves  and  in  their  own  line,  taking  for  their  guide 
that  which  was  nearest  to  them  and  latest  developed,  provided  it  had  been 
tested  in  that  line  of  their  own  past.81 


NOTES  TO   CHAPTER  II. 

1  Douglas  Campbell,  The  Puritan  in  Holland,  England,  and  America,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  481, 
487,  488. 

3  Bancroft  speaks  of  him  as  the  ablest  man  south  of  the  Potomac. 

3  Marshall's  mother  was  of  the  Scotch  family  of  Keith. 

4  See  Autobiography  of John  Trumbull,  p.  12.     New  York,  1841. 

5  On  the  twenty-seventh  of  May  [1776],  Cary  from  the  committee  presented  to  the 
[Virginia]  convention  the  declaration  of  rights  which  Mason  had  drafted.  For  the  next  fort- 
night the  great  truths  which  it  proclaimed,  and  which  were  to  form  the  groundwork  of 
American  institutions,  employed  the  thoughts  of  the  convention.  One  clause  only  received 
a  material  amendment.     Mason  had  written  that  all  should  enjoy  the  fullest  toleration  in 


The  Constitution  47 

the  exercise  of  religion.  ...  A  young  man,  then  unknown  to  fame,  .  .  .  proposed 
an  amendment.  He  was  James  Madison,  the  son  of  an  Orange  County  planter,  bred  in  the 
school  of  Presbyterian  dissenters  under  Witherspoon  at  Princeton,  trained  by  his  own  studies, 
by  meditative  rural  life  in  the  Old  Dominion,  by  an  ingenuous  indignation  at  the  persecution 
of  the  Baptists,  and  by  the  innate  principles  of  right,  to  uphold  the  sanctity  of  religious 
freedom.  He  objected  to  the  word  "  toleration,"  because  it  implied  an  established  religion, 
which  endured  dissent  only  as  a  condescension  ;  and  as  the  earnestness  of  his  convictions 
overcame  his  modesty,  he  proceeded  to  demonstrate  that  "all  men  are  equally  entitled  to 
the  free  exercise  of  religion,  according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience."  .  .  .  This  was 
the  first  achievement  of  the  wisest  civilian  of  Virginia. — Bancroft,  vol.  iv.,  p.  417. 

6  In  the  spring  of  1760  I  went  to  William  and  Mary  College  where  I  continued  two 
years.  It  was  my  great  good  fortune,  and  what  probably  fixed  the  destinies  of  my  life,  that 
Dr.  William  Small  of  Scotland  was  then  professor  of  Mathematics,  a  man  profound  in  most 
of  the  useful  branches  of  science,  with  a  happy  talent  of  communication,  correct  and  gentle- 
manly manners,  and  an  enlarged  and  liberal  mind.  He  most  happily  for  me  became  soon 
attached  to  me  and  made  me  his  daily  companion  when  not  engaged  in  the  school ;  and  from 
his  conversation  I  got  my  first  views  of  the  expansion  of  science,  and  of  the  system  of  things 
in  which  we  are  placed. — Jefferson's  Autobiography,  p.  2. 

'Bancroft,  vol.  vi.,  p.  211. 

8  See  Appendix  A  (James  Wilson  and  the  Convention  of  1787). 

9  Grouping  together,  then,  these  facts  among  others — the  fact  that  Presbyterianism  is  in 
its  own  nature  a  system  of  pure  representative  republican  government,  and  as  such  in  strik- 
ing harmony,  both  in  form  and  spirit,  with  that  of  the  State  and  nation  ;  that  it  has  always 
been  peculiarly  odious  to  tyrants  ;  the  numerous  patriotic  deliverances  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York  and  Philadelphia  and  of  some  of  the  Presbyteries  of  our  Church  ;  the  fact  that  ' '  the 
first  voice  publicly  raised  in  America  to  dissolve  all  connection  with  Great  Britain,"  was  that 
of  the  Presbyterians,  the  Westmoreland  County  resolutions  and  the  Mecklenburg  Declara- 
tion ;  the  fact  that  Witherspoon,  a  Presbyterian  of  the  most  authentic  type,  represented  in 
the  Continental  Congress  the  compact  Presbyterianism  of  the  land,  and  that  (besides  his 
other  numerous  and  exceedingly  important  services)  he  threw  the  whole  weight  of  his  own 
personal  influence  and  that  of  those  he  represented,  first  in  favor  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence and  then  in  favor  of  the  organization  of  the  States  into  a  confederate  union — and 
we  have  some  of  the  grounds  upon  which  to  base  an  estimate  of  the  share  which  Presbyteri- 
ans had  in  building  and  launching  that  national  vessel  that  now  rides  so  proudly  upon  the 
billows  with  forty  millions  of  voyagers  on  board. — W.  P.  Breed,  Presbyterians  and  the 
Revolution,  pp.   177-179. 

10  See  Letters  and  Other  Writings  of  James  Madison,  vol.  ii.,  p.  144;  vol.  iv.,  pp.  469- 
475,  480,  482  ;  Works  of  John  Adams,  vol.  iv.,  p.  358  ;  Works  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  vol. 
ix.,  p.  97. 

11  The  choice  between  a  confederacy  and  a  republic  was  very  much  the  same  as  a  choice 
between  Congregationalism  and  Presbyterianism  ;  for  Congregationalism  is  a  confederacy  of 
independent  churches,  but  Presbyterianism  is  an  organized  representative  and  constitutional 
government.  The  Presbyterian  form  of  government  was  familiar  to  the  great  mass  of  the 
inhabitants  in  the  middle  and  southern  colonies  ;  it  was  the  form  of  government  which 
Puritan  Episcopacy  has  ever  preferred.  The  Congregationalism  of  Connecticut  and  of  other 
parts  of  New  England  tended  in  the  same  direction.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
Presbyterianism  influenced  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  in  their  efforts  to  erect  a  national 
organism, — a  constitutional  republic.  But  Congregationalism  also  had  its  influence  in  de- 
fining the  limitations  of  the  supremacy  of  the  general  government  and  in  the  reservation  of 
the  sovereignty  of  the  States  in  all  those  affairs  which  were  not  assigned  to  the  general 
government.  It  is  true,  Presbyterianism  was  prepared  for  such  limitations  by  the  Scotch 
Barrier  Act  of  1697,  which  prevented  hasty  legislation  by  an  appeal  to  all  the  Presbyteries 


48  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

of  the  Church  ;  and  still  more  by  the  persistent  resistance  of  American  Presbyterianism  to 
any  legislative  power  in  the  Synod,  without  the  consent  of  the  Presbyteries.  But  the  limi- 
tations of  the  general  government  in  the  American  Constitution  were  beyond  anything  known 
to  Presbyterianism  before,  and  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States  were  vastly  in  excess  of  any 
rights  ever  claimed  or  exercised  by  Presbyteries.  The  American  form  of  civil  government 
was  a  happy  combination  of  some  of  the  best  features  presented  in  Presbyterianism  and  in 
Congregationalism. — Briggs,  American  Presbyterianism,  pp.  356,  357. 
13  See  Bancroft,  vol.  vi.,  book  iii. 

13  See  Madison's  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  144;  vol.  iv.,    pp.  469-475,  480-482. 

14  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  vol.  ix.,  p.  97. 
16  Critical  Period  of  American  History,  p.  289. 

16  See  extracts  from  debates  in  the  Constitutional  Convention,  and  particularly  the  words 
of  Sherman  and  Gerry  (Appendix  A). 

17  Campbell,   The  Puritan  in  Holland,  England,  and  America,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  426-430. 
18 Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  chap.  xxii. 

,9  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  465-467  (by  permission  of  Messrs.  Harper  &  Brothers). 

20  The  Evolution  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  pp.  90-93. 

21  See  Appendix  B  (Pennsylvania's  Formative  Influence). 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  SCOTCH-IRISH  IN  AMERICAN  POLITICS 

IN  more  recent  years  Scotland's  contribution  to  the  United  States  has 
been  no  less  remarkable  in  the  number  and  high  standing  of  the 
Scottish  names  which  appear  on  America's  Roll  of  Honor  than  it  was  in 
the  early  days  of  the  Republic. 

Starting  with  the  governors  of  the  States  and  Territories,  a  brief  exam- 
ination of  the  civil  lists  published  in  Lanman's  Biographical  Annals  of  the 
Civil  Government,  a  semi-official  work,  shows  that  up  to  the  year  in  which 
that  book  was  printed  (1886)  there  have  been  about  half  a  dozen  more  than 
one  thousand  State  or  Territorial  governors  in  office  since  1789.  Of  these, 
judging  from  the  names  alone,  more  than  two  hundred  are  of  evident  Scot- 
tish descent,  and  it  is  altogether  probable  that  if  a  closer  inspection  were 
to  be  made  a  great  many  more  would  be  found  of  that  race,  although  bear- 
ing names  alike  common  to  Scotland  and  England.  In  connection  with  the 
same  subject  it  may  be  remarked  that,  of  the  colonial  governors  sent  from 
England  to  the  American  colonies  before  1776,  and  of  the  provincial  gov- 
ernors from  that  time  to  1789,  upwards  of  forty  were  of  Scottish  blood, 
among  them  being  Robert  Hunter  (1710),  William  Burnett  (1720),  John 
Montgomerie  (1728),  John  Hamilton  (1736),  Cadwallader  Colden  (1760), 
John,  Earl  of  Dunmore  (1770),  James  Robertson  (1780),  all  of  New  York  ; 
Robert  Barclay  (1682),  John  Skene  (1686),  Lord  Neil  Campbell  (1687), 
Andrew  Hamilton,  John  Hamilton  (1736),  William  Livingston  (1776),  all  of 
New  Jersey  ;  Andrew  Hamilton  (1701),  Sir  William  Keith  (17 17),  Patrick 
Gordon  (1726),  James  Logan  (1736),  James  Hamilton  (1748),  Joseph  Reed 
(1778),  all  of  Pennsylvania  ;  and  all,  except  the  one  last  named,  governors  of 
Delaware  also  ;  John  McKinley  (1777),  of  Delaware  ;  Alexander  Spotswood 
(1710),  William  Gooch  (?)  (1727),  Robert  Dinwiddie  (1752),  John  Camp- 
bell (1756),  John  Blair  (1767),  William  Nelson  (1770),  Lord  Dunmore 
(1772),  Patrick  Henry  (1776),  Thomas  Nelson  (1781),  all  of  Virginia; 
William  Drummond  (1663),  Gabriel  Johnston  (1734),  Matthew  Rowan 
(J753)»  Alexander  Martin  (1782),  Samuel  Johnston  (1788),  all  of  North 
Carolina;  Joseph  Morton  (?)  (1682),  Richard  Kirk  (1684),  James  Moore 
(1719),  William  Campbell  (1775),  John  Rutledge  (1779),  all  of  South 
Carolina;  William  Erwin  (1775),  Archibald  Bulloch  (1776),  John  Houston 
(1778),  Edward  Telfair  (1786),  all  of  Georgia;  and  George  Johnstone 
(1763),  of  Florida. 

Of  the  State  governors  from  1789  to  1885,  the  Scotch  furnished  to  Penn- 
sylvania nearly  one-half  her  chief  executives  ;  to  Virginia,  nearly  one- 
third  ;  to  North  Carolina,  more  than  one-fourth  ;  to  South  Carolina,  nearly 

49 


50  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

one-third  ;  to  Georgia,  more  than  one-half  ;  to  Alabama,  more  than  one- 
fifth  ;  to  Mississippi,  about  one-fifth  ;  to  Louisiana,  more  than  one-fifth  ; 
to  Texas,  about  one-third  ;  to  Tennessee,  nearly  one-half  ;  to  Kentucky, 
about  one-third  ;  to  Ohio,  one-half  ;  to  Indiana,  more  than  one-third ;  to 
Illinois,  nearly  one-third  ;  to  Missouri,  nearly  one-half. 

Among  other  celebrated  Scottish  characters  of  colonial  times  may  be 
mentioned  Captain  William  Kidd,  the  notorious  pirate,  Major  Richard 
Stobo,  and  possibly  Sir  William  Johnson,  Great  Britain's  celebrated  Indian 
agent  in  the  Mohawk  valley. 

Of  Scotch  descent,  also,  on  both  sides  of  his  house,  was  General  George 
Rogers  Clark,  the  record  of  whose  daring  and  successful  campaigns  north 
of  the  Ohio  River  in  1778,  is  not  surpassed  in  American  history.  To  this 
man  alone  the  United  States  owes  that  part  of  its  territory  lying  between 
the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers  ;  and  had  it  not  been  for  the  conquest  of 
this  empire  from  the  British  by  Clark  and  his  Scotch-Irish  soldiers,  the 
States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota 
might  have  been  to-day  a  portion  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada.1 

In  the  naval  wars  of  1776  and  later,  we  find  among  the  most  celebrated 
commanders  the  following  of  Scottish  birth  or  descent  :  John  Paul  Jones, 
Samuel  Nicholson,  Richard  Dale,  Alexander  Murray,  Charles  Stewart,  James 
Barron,  John  Rodgers,  Sr.,  John  Rodgers,  Jr.,  Thomas  McDonough,  Matthew 
Galbraith  Perry,  Oliver  Hazard  Perry,3  Franklin  Buchanan. 

Some  well-known  border  heroes  of  Scottish  descent,  besides  George 
Rogers  Clark,  were  Adam  and  Andrew  Poe,  Samuel  Brady,  Captain  Jack, 
Simon  Kenton,  Kit  Carson,  David  Crockett,  and  Samuel  Houston. 

Among  the  American  generals  and  warriors  since  the  Revolution  none 
rank  higher  than  Andrew  Jackson,  Winfield  Scott,  Hugh  Brady,  Zachary 
Taylor,  U.  S.  Grant,  James  B.  McPherson,  George  B.  McClellan,  J.  E. 
Johnston,  Stonewall  Jackson,  J.  E.  B.  Stuart,  James  Longstreet,  John  A. 
Rawlins,  Robert  H.  Milroy,  Lew  Wallace,  Irvin  McDowell,  Q.  A.  Gilmore, 
Hugh  Kilpatrick,  Francis  P.  Blair,  John  F.  Reynolds,  Fitz-John  Porter, 
David  Hunter,  William  H.  Jackson,  Alexander  W.  Campbell,  David  Bell, 
William  Birney,  Horace  Porter,  John  A.  McNulta,  Alexander  Hays,  La- 
fayette McLaws,  D.  M.  Gregg,  Schuyler  Hamilton,  John  J.  Abercrombie, 
William  H.  Lytle,  John  B.  S.  Todd,  Winfield  S.  Hancock,  Clement  A. 
Finley,  Isaac  Ridgeway  Trimble,  James  Ronald  Chalmers,  George  A. 
McCall,  John  A.  McClernand,  Nathan  B.  Forrest,  Benjamin  McCul- 
loch,  John  B.  Magruder,  John  B.  Gordon,  John  A.  Logan,  Theodore 
Roosevelt,3  Henry  W.  Lawton,  Frederick  Funston,  and  Daniel,  George 
W.,  Robert  L.,  Alexander  McD.,  Daniel,  Jr.,  Edwin  S.,  Edward  M.,  and 
Anson  G.  McCook,  all  of  Scottish  blood. 

In  American  politics  this  race  has  been  represented  by  such  individuals 
as  Thomas  H.  Benton,  John  C.  Calhoun,4  Jefferson  Davis,  James  G.  Blaine, 
Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  Joseph   E.   McDonald,   John   Bell,   Alexander  H. 


American    Politics  51 

Stephens,  Samuel  Randall,  J.  C.  Breckenridge,  John  G.  Carlisle,  Simon 
Cameron,  the  Livingstons  of  New  York,  William  B.  Allison,  John  B.  Gib- 
son, Matthew  S.  Quay,  Calvin  S.  Brice,  Marcus  A.  Hanna,  Whitelaw  Reid, 
J.  Sterling  Morton,  Wayne  McVeagh,  Chauncey  Mitchell  Depew,  Robert 
Todd  Lincoln,  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  Adlai  E.  Stevenson,  Stephen  B.  Elkins, 
Daniel  S.  Lamont,  Arthur  P.  Gorman,  William  McKinley.6 

In  the  Presidents'  Cabinets,  the  Scotch  have  been  represented  as  Secre- 
taries of  State  by  Edward  Livingston,  Louis  McLane,  John  Forsyth,  John  C. 
Calhoun,  James  Buchanan,  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  James  G.  Blaine,  John  Hay  ; 
Secretaries  of  the  Treasury,  Alexander  Hamilton,  George  W.  Campbell, 
Alexander  J.  Dallas,  William  H.  Crawford,  Louis  McLane,  Thomas  Ewing, 
Thomas  Corwin,  James  Guthrie,  Howell  Cobb,  Salmon  P.  Chase,  Hugh  Mc- 
Culloch  ;  Secretaries  of  War,  Henry  Knox,  James  McHenry,  John  Arm- 
strong, James  Monroe,  William  H.  Crawford,  George  Graham,  John  C. 
Calhoun,  James  Barbour,  Peter  B.  Porter,  John  Bell,  James  M.  Porter, 
George  W.  Crawford,  Jefferson  Davis,  Simon  Cameron,  U.  S.  Grant,  James 
D.  Cameron,  George  W.  McCrary,  Alexander  Ramsey,  Robert  Todd  Lincoln, 
Daniel  S.  Lamont ;  Secretaries  of  the  Navy,  Paul  Hamilton,  Thomas  W. 
Gilmer,  William  A.  Graham,  John  P.  Kennedy,  James  C.  Dobbin,  George  M. 
Robeson,  Nathan  W.  Goff ;  Secretaries  of  the  Interior,  Thomas  Ewing, 
Alexander  H.  H.  Stuart,  Robert  McClelland,  James  Harlan,  Henry  M. 
Teller  ;  Postmasters-General,  John  McLean,  James  Campbell,  Montgomery 
Blair,  Frank  Hatton  ;  Attorneys-General,  John  Breckenridge,  Felix  Grundy, 
Jeremiah  S.  Black,  James  Speed,  John  W.  Griggs  ;  United  States  Senators, 
(since  i860),  Blair  (2),  Cameron  (2),  Cockrell,  Gibson,  Logan,  McMillan, 
McPherson,  Mitchell  (2),  Stewart,  Teller,  McEnery,  Caffery,  Butler,  Mc- 
Laurin,  Cannon,  Vance,  Johnston,  Houston,  Bailey,  Blaine,  Burnside,  Gor- 
don, Sharon,  Armstrong,  Beck,  Wallace,  Thurman,  Patterson  (2),  Oglesby, 
McDonald  (2),  McCreery,  Brownlow,  Caldwell,  Kelly,  Ramsey,  Robertson, 
Scott  (2),  Tipton,  Corbett,  Harlan,  Hill,  Pomeroy,  Wilson,  Ross,  Dixon, 
Davis  (2),  Guthrie,  Grimes,  Welch,  Cowan,  McDougall,  Henderson,  Hen- 
dricks, Nesmith,  Carlisle,  Breckenridge,  Kennedy,  Johnson,  Hunter,  Hemp- 
hill, Douglas,  Morton,  McComas,  Ross,  Clark,  Foster,  McCumber,  Hanna, 
Culberson,  Hamilton  (2),  Mills,  Kyle,  McBride,  Brice,  Lindsay,  Blackburn, 
Palmer,  Cullom,  Call,  Kenney,  Beveridge,  and  others  ;  Speakers  of  the 
House,  John  Bell,  James  K.  Polk,  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter,  Howell  Cobb, 
James  L.  Orr,  James  G.  Blaine,  Michael  C.  Kerr,  Samuel  J.  Randall,  John 
G.  Carlisle,  David  B.  Henderson. 

In  literature  may  be  named  Washington  Irving,  Edgar  Allan  Poe,  Her- 
man Melville,  Joel  Chandler  Harris,  Lew  Wallace,  Marion  Crawford,Thomas 
Nelson  Page,  Maurice  Thompson  ;  in  art,  Gilbert  Stuart,  J.  McNeil  Whistler, 
Walter  MacEwen,  George  Inness,  J.  Q.  A.  Ward,  James  Wilson  McDonald, 
James  D.  Smillie,  Alexander  Doyle,  E.  F.  Andrews,  Thomas  Crawford, 
Frederick  MacMonnies,  John  W.  Alexander ;  in  music,  Edward  MacDowell. 


Y/vUkaj<^- 


52  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

In  practical  science,  whether  the  credit  for  the  invention  of  the  telegraph 
be  given  to  Charles  Morrison,  to  Joseph  Henry,  or  to  Samuel  Finley  Morse, 
each  of  whom  contributed  towards  it,  the  honor  still  belongs  to  the  Scotch. 
Edison's  mother  was  Mary  Elliott,  of  Scottish  blood  ;  and  John  Ericsson 
had  in  his  veins  a  strain  of  the  same  virile  current.  Likewise,  William 
Henry,  James  Rumsey,  and  Robert  Fulton,  who  each  had  a  share  in  the  inven- 
tion of  the  steamboat,  were  all  three  Scotch  ;  as  well  as  Alexander  Graham 
Bell  and  Elisha  Gray,  the  inventors  of  the  telephone,  and  the  McCormicks, 
who  did  so  much  for  the  improvement  of  harvesting  machinery.  Drs.  D. 
Hayes  Agnew  and  Frank  Hamilton  the  eminent  surgeons,  Alexander  Wilson 
the  ornithologist,  and  Asa  Gray  the  botanist,  all  of  Scottish  descent,  are  also 
ranked  among  the  greatest  in  their  respective  professions. 

In  no  departments  of  American  civil  life,  however,  is  the  Scottish  influ- 
ence more  marked  and  dominating  than  in  those  of  the  judiciary  and  the 
press.  The  interpretation  of  law  in  America  has  been  chiefly  the  work 
of  non-English  judges  ;  and  perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the 
distinctive  character  of  American  jurisprudence  is  due  to  the  preponder- 
ating influence  of  men  of  Celtic  blood  at  the  bench  and  bar. 

Of  the  fifty  judges  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  from  1789  to 
1882,  we  find  not  more  than  twenty-two  of  probable  English  blood  ;  Jay  and 
Duval,  of  French  ;  Marshall,  of  Welsh  and  Scotch  ;  Rutledge,  Wilson,  Blair, 
two  Johnsons,  Paterson,  Moore,  Livingston,  Todd,  Thompson,  Trimble, 
McLean,  Barbour,  McKinley,  Daniel,  Nelson,  Grier,  Campbell,  Miller, 
Davis,  Harlan,  of  Scottish ;  and  Wayne,  Catron,  and  Chase  of  mixed 
descent. 

The  first  newspaper  printed  in  America — the  Boston  News-Letter — was 
the  enterprise  of  a  Scotchman  bearing  the  characteristic  name  of  John 
Campbell.  In  recent  times,  among  editors  of  the  first  rank,  we  find  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Scottish  race  :  James  Gordon  Bennett,  Horace  Greeley, 
Henry  W.  Grady,  Murat  Halstead,  Samuel  Medary,  Joseph  Medill,  James 
W.  Scott,  Alexander  K.  McClure,  John  A.  Cockerill,  Whitelaw  Reid,  Wash- 
ington and  John  R.  McLean,  Joseph  B.  McCullagh,  Richard  Smith, 
John  Russell  Young,  Henry  Watterson,  "  Richelieu "  Robinson,  Beriah 
Wilkins,  Robert  W.  Patterson. 

Among  America's  prominent  business  men  of  Scottish  descent  may  be 
named  A.  T.  Stewart,  Robert  Stuart,  Peter  Cooper,  John  I.  Blair,  John 
Crerar,  James  Lenox,  Andrew  Carnegie,  John  Davison  Rockefeller. 

Daniel  Webster,  the  most  brilliant  statesman  New  England  has  given  to 
the  country,  was  likewise  not  of  English  origin  in  the  paternal  line,  but  came 
from  the  New  Hampshire  Scotch.8 

In  view  of  these  facts  can  it  not  with  propriety  be  contended  that  the 
Scottish  race,  in  proportion  to  its  relative  strength  in  the  New  World,  has 
contributed  to  America  a  vastly  greater  number  of  her  leaders  in  thought 
and  action  than  has  any  other  ? 


American    Politics 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   III. 


53 


1  A  list  of  the  officers  of  the  Illinois  Regiment  and  of  the  Crockett  Regiment  : 

Brig.-General — George  Rogers  Clark.  Lieut. -Col.  —  John  Montgomery.  Majors 
—  Thomas  Quirk,  George  Slaughter.  Captains  —  John  Bailey,  Richard  Brashear,  Abraham 
Chaplin,  Benjamin  Fields,  Robert  George,  John  Gerault,  Richard  Harrison,  Abraham  Kellar, 
Richard  McCarty,  John  Rogers,  Benjamin  Roberts,  Mark  Thomas,  Isaac  Taylor,  Robert 
Todd,  John  Williams.  Lieutenants  —  Richard  Clark,  William  Clark,  James  Merriweather, 
James  Montgomery,  James  Robertson,  William  Roberts,  Joseph  Saunders,  Jarret  Williams. 
Ensigns  —  William  Asher,  Laurence  Slaughter.     Cornet — John  Thurston. 

Crockett's  Regiment:  Lieut. -Col.  —  Joseph  Crockett.  Major  —  George  Walls.  Sur- 
geon—  Charles  Greer.  Captains — John  Chapman  (killed),  William  Cherry,  John  Ker- 
ney,  Benjamin  Kinley  (died),  Peter  Moore,  Abraham  Lipton,  Thomas  Young.  Ensigns  — 
Henry  Daring,  Samuel  Ball  Greene,  Hugh  McGavock. 

For  George  Rogers  Clark's  descent,  see  p.  30,  note  n. 

The  names  of  the  following  Scotch-Irishmen  and  others  are  taken  from  a  list  of  the 
*' Noncommissioned  Officers  and  Soldiers  of  the  Illinois  Regiment  and  the  Western  Army 
under  the  Command  of  General  George  Rogers  Clark."  The  full  list  appears  in  the  Vir- 
ginia Historical  Magazine \  vol.  i.,  pp.  131-141  : 

John  Allen,  Sr.,  John  Allen,  Jr.,  John  Anderson,  Samuel  Allen  (Sergeant),  David  Allen, 
Isaac  Allen,  Francis  Adams,  Wm.  Bell,  John  Blair,  David  Bailey,  Richard  Breeden,  James 
Brown  (S.),  Wm.  Berry,  James  Bentley,  John  Bentley,  Lon  Brown,  James  Baxter  (Corporal), 
J.  B.  Biron  (S.),  Colin  Brown,  Wm.  Barry,  Thos.  Benton  or  Bernton,  John  Breeden  (S.), 
Samuel  Bird,  Wm.  Bowen  (C),  John  Barber,  Robert  Burnett  (died),  James  Bryant,  George 
Burk,  John  Burris,  John  Boyles,  Ebenezer  Bowing,  Asher  Brown,  Adam  Bingoman,  Samuel 
Blackford,  Simon  Burney,  Lewis  Brown,  Collin  Brown,  Daniel  Bolton,  John  Clark,  Andrew 
Clark,  Richard  Chapman,  Edward  Chapman,  Wm.  Chapman,  Patrick  Cornelia,  Wm. 
Crassley,  John  Cowan,  Andrew  Cannon,  James  Curry,  Patrick  Conroy,  Joseph  Cooper, 
Ramsey  Cooper,  Thomas  Connolly,  John  Conn,  George  Campbell  (S.),  John  Campbell,  John 
Cowdry,  Andrew  Cowan,  Daniel  Calvin,  James  Corder,  Rice  Curtis,  Ellick  Chamber, 
Edward  Cockran,  George  Cockran,  Dennis  Coheron,  James  Cameron  (C),  Daniel  Cowgill, 
James  Cox,  Andrew  Codes,  James  Dawson,  James  Dawson,  John  Doyle,  Benj.  Duncan, 
Archibald  Duncan,  Charles  Duncan,  David  Duncan,  Nimrod  Duncan,  Joseph  Duncan, 
Samuel  Duncan,  John  Duff,  Joseph  Donon,  Abraham  Frazier  (S.),  Henry  Foster,  John 
Grimes,  John  Gordon,  John  George,  John  Garret,  Samuel  Gibbons,  David  Glenn,  James 
Graham,  Samuel  Humphries,  Thomas  Hays,  Barney  Higgons,  Miles  Hart,  James  Hays, 
Wm.  Hall,  Wm.  Huin,  Andrew  Hendrix,  John  Johnston,  Edward  Johnston,  Samuel 
Johnston,  Thos.  Jamison  (S.),  David  Kennedy,  James  Kincaid,  James  Kirkley,  Thomas 
Kirk,  Wm.  Kerr,  Robert  Kidd,  George  Key,  Thomas  Key,  John  Lasley,  Peter  Laughlin, 
John  Levinston,  Richard  Lovell,  Benjamin  Lewis,  Jacob  Lyon,  John  Lyons,  Wm.  Long, 
Pleasant  Lockhert,  Archibald  Lockhart,  Hugh  Logan,  James  Lewis,  Edward  Murray,  John 
Montgomery,  Francis  McDermot,  John  Moore  (S.),  John  McMickle,  Abraham  Miller  (C), 
John  Montgomery,  Wm.  Montgomery,  Chas.  McLockland,  Edward  Matthews  (S.),  John 
McGuire,  James  Mcintosh,  Patrick  Marr  (C.  and  S.),  John  McMichaels,  James  McMullen, 
Patrick  McClure,  Wm.  Merriweather,  John  Miller,  Charles  Martin,  David  McDonald,  John 
Murphy,  Thomas  Murray,  Thomas  McClain,  Wm.  Munrony  (S.),  Sylvestor  Munrony, 
Thomas  McQuiddy,  Thomas  McDaniel,  James  McDonald,  Elijah  Martin,  James  McKin, 
Solomon  Martin,  John  McKinney,  John  Moore,  Thomas  Moore,  Thomas  McDonald,  Wm. 
Marshall,  John  McGann,  Enock  Nelson,  Moses  Nelson,  John  Nelson,  John  Neal,  Ebenezer 
Ozburn,  John  Patterson,  James  Potter,  Edward  Parker,  Wm.  Patterson,  David  Pagan, 
Ebenezer  Potter,  Samuel  Pickens,  John  Ross,  Andrew  Ryan,  Lazarus  Ryan,  James  Ramsay, 
John  Robertson  (S.),  James  Ross  (S.),  John  Rice  (S.),  David  Rogers  (S.),  Joseph  Rogers, 


54  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Larkin  Rutherford,  Richard  Robinson,  Joseph  Ross  (C),  Benjamin  Russell,  Robert  Randal, 
Patrick  Riley,  David  Smith,  Randal  Smith,  Joseph  Smith,  John  Spencer,  Wm.  Shannon, 
John  Stephenson  (S.),  Samuel  Stephenson,  James  Thompson,  James  Taylor,  Edward  Taylor, 
Wm.  Thompson,  Daniel  Tygard,  Thomas  Taylor,  Robert  Whitehead,  Wm.  Whitehead, 
Randal  White,  Robert  White,  David  Wallace,  Wm.  Wilkerson,  John  Wilson,  Thomas 
Wray. 

2  "  Going  out  from  Put-in-Bay  the  tenth  of  September,  1813,  with  his  whole  squadron, 
Perry  met  the  British  fleet  in  a  memorable  naval  contest.  Himself  a  young  man  of 
twenty-eight  years  of  age,  he  was  opposed  to  one  of  Nelson's  veterans.  Himself  a  Scotch- 
Irishman,  his  opponent,  Captain  Robert  H.  Barclay,  was  a  Scotchman.  The  engage- 
ment was  hot,  but  at  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  the  gallant  Perry  saw  the  British  flag 
hauled  down.  For  the  first  time  since  she  had  created  a  navy,  Great  Britain  lost  an  entire 
squadron.  "  We  have  met  the  enemy  and  they  are  ours,"  is  the  familiar  line  in  which  Perry 
announced  his  victory,  in  a  despatch  to  General  William  Henry  Harrison.  Commodore 
Perry's  mother  was  Sarah  Wallace  Alexander,  a  Scotch  woman  from  the  north  of  Ireland. 
She  became  the  mother  of  five  sons,  all  of  whom  were  officers  in  the  United  States  Navy. 
Two  daughters  married  Captain  George  W.  Rogers  and  Dr.  William  Butler  of  the  United 
States  Navy.  Dr.  Butler  was  the  father  of  Senator  Matthew  Galbraith  Butler,  of  South 
Carolina.  After  the  victory  at  Lake  Erie,  some  farmers  in  Rhode  Island  declared,  such  was 
the  estimation  in  which  they  held  this  woman,  that  it  was  '  Mrs.  Perry's  victory.'  " — S.  S. 
Green,  The  Scotch-Irish  in  America. 

3  Theodore  Roosevelt's  father,  bearing  the  same  name,  was  of  Dutch  descent ;  his 
mother,  a  native  of  Georgia,  of  Scottish.  Theodore  Roosevelt,  Sr.,  married  Martha  Bulloch 
on  December  22,  1853.  Martha  Bulloch's  parents  were  Major  James  Stephens  Bulloch  and 
Martha  Stewart,  the  latter  a  daughter  of  Daniel  Stewart  (an  officer  of  the  Revolution)  and 
Susan  Oswald.  James  Stephens  Bulloch  was  a  son  of  James  and  Ann  Irvine  Bulloch,  the 
latter  a  daughter  of  Dr.  John  and  Ann  Elizabeth  Baillie  Irvine.  James  Bulloch  (b.  1765  ; 
d.  Feb.  9,  1806)  was  a  son  of  Archibald  and  Mary  De  Veaux  Bulloch,  the  latter  a  daughter 
of  James  De  Veaux,  of  French  Huguenot  descent,  and  senior  judge  of  the  King's  Court  in 
the  province  of  Georgia.  Archibald  Bulloch  was  president  and  commander-in-chief  of  the 
colony  of  Georgia,  1776-1777  ;  delegate  to  the  Continental  Congress  of  1775,  and  elected  to 
the  one  of  1776  ;  signed  the  first  constitution  of  the  State  of  Georgia  as  president ;  and  died 
in  1777.  He  was  a  son  of  James  and  Jean  Stobo  Bulloch,  the  latter  a  daughter  of  Rev. 
Archibald  Stobo,  who  sailed  from  Scotland  with  the  Darien  colonists  in  1698,  and  subse- 
quently (in  1700)  settled  at  Charleston,  S.  C.  James  Bulloch,  Sr.,  b.  about  1701,  in  Scot- 
land, came  from  Glasgow  to  Charleston  about  1728,  where,  in  1729,  he  married  Jean  Stobo. 
The  Bullochs  appear  to  belong  to  Baldernock,  in  Stirlingshire,  where  the  name  appears  on 
the  records  for  some  four  hundred  years  back.  See  A  History  and  Genealogy  of  the  Families 
of  Bellinger  and  De  Veaux,  etc.,  by  Joseph  Gaston  Bulloch,  Savannah,  1895. 

4  John  C.  Calhoun  was  the  grandson  of  James  Calhoun,  who  is  said  to  have  emigrated 
from  Donegal,  Ireland,  in  1733  {John  C.  Calhoun,  by  Dr.  H.  von  Hoist,  p.  8).  John  C. 
Calhoun  was  the  son  of  Patrick  Calhoun,  whom  James  Parton,  in  his  Famous  Americans  of 
decent  Times,  speaks  of  (pp.  117,  118)  as  a  Scotch-Irishman,  who,  with  Andrew  Jackson  and 
Andrew  Johnson,  other  Scotch-Irishmen,  illustrates  well  the  "  North  of  Ireland"  character. 
Patrick  Calhoun  was  a  Presbyterian  like  his  father  (J.  Randolph  Tucker,  in  article  "John 
Caldwell  Calhoun,"  in  Appleton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography).  In  1770,  Patrick 
Calhoun  married  (von  Hoist,  p.  8)  Martha  Caldwell,  who,  says  John  S.  Jenkins  in  his  Life 
of  John  Caldwell  Calhoun  (p.  21),  was  a  daughter  of  a  Scotch-Irish  Presbyterian,  who, 
according  to  Tucker,  was  an  emigrant  from  Ireland. 

6  Henry  Clay  has  been  classed  with  the  Scotch-Irish  by  Mr.  Elbert  Hubbard. 
6  Lodge,  Daniel  Webster,  p.  5  ;  Curtis,  Life  of  Daniel  Webster,  vol.  i.,  p.  2. 


p-  tf 


CHAPTER  IV 

NEW  ENGLAND  NOT  THE  BIRTHPLACE  OF  AMERICAN 

LIBERTY 

ANOTHER  instance  of  the  effect  of  continuous  advertising  by  New 
England's  historians  of  the  superlative  and  exclusive  patriotism  of 
her  sons  may  be  noted  in  the  claims  so  frequently  made,  that  the  Ameri- 
can people  were  first  prepared  for  the  idea  of  resistance  to  the  arbitrary 
measures  of  Great  Britain,  and  for  independence,  by  a  few  of  the  citizens  of 
Massachusetts.  These  claims  seem  first  to  have  been  given  prominence  by 
the  discussion  that  arose  among  some  of  the  surviving  leaders  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary period,  in  1817  and  1818,  upon  the  appearance  of  William  Wirt's 
Life  of  Patrick  Henry.  On  page  41  of  that  book,1  the  biographer  cites 
Thomas  Jefferson  as  saying  that  "  Mr.  Henry  certainly  gave  the  first  impulse 
to  the  ball  of  the  Revolution." 9 

This  statement  by  Mr.  Wirt  led  to  several  appeals  being  made  to  Mr. 
Jefferson  by  correspondents  from  New  England  for  its  verification  ;  and  in 
answering  such  communications,  its  distinguished  author  uniformly  dis- 
claimed any  thought  of  the  general  application  of  his  remark  to  the  country 
at  large,  and  very  properly  limited  its  range  to  the  development  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary movement  within  his  own  State.  ' 

The  spirit  of  sectional  pride  had  been  aroused,  however,  and  an  exten- 
sive epistolary  discussion  followed,  in  which  some  of  the  foremost  citizens 
of  the  Republic  took  part.  New  England's  chief  advocate  was  John  Adams, 
doubtless  the  original  "  Honest  John "  of  American  politics.  With  his 
natural  garrulousness,  he  had  written  at  great  length  the  history  of  the  origin 
of  independence  in  Massachusetts,  going  into  minute  detail  to  show  how  it 
all  developed  from  the  Boston  speech  made  by  James  Otis  in  1761.  While 
Mr.  Adams's  report  of  and  commentary  upon  this  famous  argument,  written 
so  many  years  after  it  occurred,  reminds  the  reader  somewhat  of  the  elo- 
quent and  lengthy  speeches  which  the  Roman  and  mediaeval  historians  put 
into  the  mouths  of  warrior  heroes  about  to  engage  in  some  great  battle,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  general  correctness  of  his  statements  regarding  the 
effect  of  Otis's  words  in  crystallizing  public  sentiment  in  Massachusetts  and 
turning  it  definitely  against  the  encroaching  tendencies  of  Great  Britain's 
commercial  policy.  It  goes  without  saying,  that  the  beginning  of  resist- 
ance on  the  part  of  John  Adams  dates  from  that  time.  His  description  of 
the  incident,  given  in  a  letter  to  William  Tudor,  written  March  29,  181 7, 
begins  as  follows 3  : 

The  scene  is  the  Council  Chamber  in  the  old  Town  House  in  Boston. 
The  date  is  in  the  month  of  February,  1761.     .     .     . 

55 


56  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

In  this  chamber,  round  a  grate  fire,  were  seated  five  Judges  with  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor Hutchinson  at  their  head  as  Chief  Justice,  all  arrayed  in 
their  new  fresh,  rich  robes  of  scarlet  English  broadcloth  ;  in  their  large 
cambric  bands,  and  immense  judicial  wigs.  In  this  chamber  were  seated 
at  a  long  table  all  the  barristers-at-law  of  Boston,  and  of  the  neighboring 
county  of  Middlesex,  in  gowns,  bands,  and  tie  wigs.  ...  In  this  chamber 
you  have  now  the  stage  and  the  scenery ;  next  follows  a  narrative  of  the 
subject.     .     .     . 

When  the  British  ministry  received  from  General  Amherst  his  despatches 
announcing  the  conquest  of  Montreal,  and  the  consequent  annihilation  of 
the  French  government  in  America,  in  1759,  they  immediately  conceived  the 
design  and  took  the  resolution  of  conquering  the  English  colonies,  and  sub- 
jecting them  to  the  unlimited  authority  of  Parliament.  With  this  view  and 
intention  they  sent  orders  and  instructions  to  the  collector  of  customs  in 
Boston,  Mr.  Charles  Paxton,  to  apply  to  the  civil  authority  for  writs  of  assist- 
ance, to  enable  the  custom-house  officers,  tide-waiters,  land-waiters,  and  all, 
to  command  all  sheriffs  and  constables  to  attend  and  aid  them  in  breaking 
open  houses,  stores,  shops,  cellars,  ships,  bales,  trunks,  chests,  casks,  pack- 
ages of  all  sorts,  to  search  for  goods,  wares,  and  merchandises,  which  had 
been  imported  against  the  prohibition  or  without  paying  taxes  imposed  by 
certain  acts  of  Parliament,  called  the  acts  of  trade.     .     .     . 

Now  for  the  actors  and  performers.  Mr.  Gridley  argued  with  his  charac- 
teristic learning,  ingenuity,  and  dignity.  .  .  .  Mr.  Thacher  followed  him 
on  the  other  side,  and  argued  with  the  softness  of  manners,  the  ingenuity 
and  cool  reasoning,  which  were  remarkable  in  his  amiable  character. 

But  Otis  was  a  flame  of  fire  ! — with  a  promptitude  of  classical  allusions, 
a  depth  of  research,  a  rapid  summary  of  historical  dates  and  events,  a  pro- 
fusion of  legal  authorities,  a  prophetic  glance  of  his  eye  into  futurity,  and  a 
torrent  of  impetuous  eloquence,  he  hurried  away  everything  before  him. 
American  Independence  was  then  and  there  born  ;  the  seeds  of  patriots  and 
heroes  were  then  and  there  sown,  to  defend  the  vigorous  youth,  the  non  sine 
Diis  animosus  infans.  Every  man  of  a  crowded  audience  appeared  to  me  to 
go  away,  as  I  did,  ready  to  take  arms  against  Writs  of  Assistance.  Then  and 
there  was  the  first  scene  of  opposition  to  the  arbitrary  claims  of  Great 
Britain.  Then  and  there  the  child  Independence  was  born.  In  fifteen 
years,  namely,  in  1776,  he  grew  up  to  manhood,  and  declared  himself  free.* 

After  reading  Mr.  Wirt's  Life  of  Patrick  Henry y  and  comparing  the  date 
of  his  famous  speech  before  the  Virginia  Assembly  with  that  of  James  Otis's 
argument  against  the  Writs  of  Assistance,  Mr.  Adams  valiantly  took  up  his 
pen  in  defence  of  the  honor  of  his  native  State,  and  at  once  indited  a  notice 
of  infringement  to  the  panegyrist  of  the  Virginia  orator  in  this  fashion  * : 

I  envy  none  of  the  well-merited  glories  of  Virginia,  or  any  of  her  sages 
or  heroes.  But,  Sir,  I  am  jealous,  very  jealous,  of  the  honor  of  Massachu- 
setts. 

The  resistance  to  the  British  system  for  subjugating  the  colonies  began  in 
1760,  and  in  the  month  of  February,  1761,  James  Otis  electrified  the  town  of 
Boston,  the  province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  and  the  whole  continent  more 
than  Patrick  Henry  ever  did  in  the  whole  course  of  his  life.  If  we  must 
have  panegyric  and  hyperbole,  I  must  say  that  if  Mr.  Henry  was  Demos- 
thenes and  Mr.  Richard  Henry  Lee,  Cicero,  James  Otis  was  Isaiah  and  Eze- 
kiel  united.8 


The  Birthplace  of  American  Liberty  57 

Basing  chiefly  on  this,  and  on  other  hasty  and  ill-considered  statements  of 
a  like  tenor,  made  at  about  the  same  time,  New  England's  historians,  as  a  rule, 
have  since  accepted  as  final  and  authoritative  this  claim  of  her  foremost 
Revolutionary  statesman  as  to  the  beginnings  in  America  of  resistance  to  the 
repressive  measures  of  Great  Britain  ;  and  with  one  voice  they  ascribe  to 
Massachusetts,  and  to  Massachusetts  alone,  the  inauguration  of  the  move- 
ment which  led  to  final  independence. 

That  the  deliberate  judgment  of  Adams  did  not  confirm  the  drawing  of 
such  a  broad  conclusion  from  the  statement  first  put  forth  by  himself  under 
the  impulse  of  feelings  aroused  by  wounded  State  pride,  may  be  reasonably 
demonstrated  by  an  examination  of  some  of  his  later  writings. 

As  tending  to  show  this  more  impartial  attitude  on  the  part  of  the 
amiable  and  impulsive  Adams,  his  correspondence  with  Madison  in  the  same 
year  may  be  cited,  in  which  some  observations  of  the  latter  afford  a  convincing 
proof,  as  well  of  Adams's  ultimately  just  conception  as  of  the  insufficiency 
of  any  view  of  the  matter  in  which  the  range  is  limited  to  individuals. 
Madison's  letter  to  Adams  of  August  7,  1818,  is  in  part  as  follows7 : 

Your  remark  is  very  just  on  the  subject  of  Independence.  It  was  not 
the  offspring  of  a  particular  man  or  a  particular  moment.  .  .  .  Our 
forefathers  brought  with  them  the  germ  of  Independence  in  the  principle  of 
self-taxation.     Circumstances  unfolded  and  perfected  it. 

The  first  occasion  which  aroused  this  principle  was,  if  I  can  trust  my 
recollection,  the  projected  union  at  Albany  in  1754,  when  the  proposal  of 
the  British  Government  to  reimburse  its  advances  for  the  colonies  by  a  par- 
liamentary tax  on  them  was  met  by  the  letter  from  Dr.  Franklin  to  Governor 
Shirley,  pointing  out  the  unconstitutionality,  the  injustice,  and  the  impolicy 
of  such  a  tax. 

The  opposition  and  discussions  produced  by  the  Stamp  and  subsequent 
Acts  of  Parliament,  made  another  stage  in  the  growth  of  Independence.    .   .    . 

Franklin's  letters  to  Governor  Shirley  written  in  December,  1754,  to 
which  reference  is  made  by  Madison,  contain  such  expressions  as  these  8 : 

I  apprehend  that  excluding  the  people  of  the  colonies  from  all  share 
in  the  choice  of  the  grand  council  will  give  extreme  dissatisfaction,  as  well 
as  the  taxing  them  by  act  of  Parliament,  where  they  have  no  represen- 
tation.    .     .     . 

That  it  is  supposed  an  undoubted  right  of  Englishmen  not  to  be  taxed 
but  by  their  own  consent,  given  through  their  representatives. 

That  the  colonies  have  no  representatives  in  Parliament. 

That  to  propose  taxing  them  by  Parliament,  and  refuse  them  the  liberty 
of  choosing  a  representative  council  to  meet  in  the  colonies  and  consider  and 
judge  of  the  necessity  of  any  general  tax  and  the  quantum,  shows  a  suspicion 
of  their  loyalty  to  the  Crown,  or  of  their  regard  for  their  country,  or  of  their 
common  sense  and  understanding  which  they  have  not  deserved. 

In  Pennsylvania,  the  matter  of  taxation  had  been  a  constant  source  of 
dispute  between  the  Assembly  and  the  Proprietary  government  for  many 
years  prior  to  1760.     In  that  State,  more  than  ten  years  before  the  battle  of 


58  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Lexington,  an  armed  uprising  took  place  on  the  part  of  the  Scotch-Irish 
against  the  principle  of  taxation  without  representation  or  protection. 

The  inciting  causes  of  this  hostile  demonstration  against  the  provincial 
government  of  Pennsylvania  grew  out  of  the  continued  and  studied  neglect, 
by  the  Quaker  oligarchy  then  controlling  the  Pennsylvania  Assembly,  of  that 
primary  essential  of  all  organized  governments,  namely,  the  ability  and  dis- 
position to  defend  its  citizens  against  the  murderous  invasions  of  an  armed 
foe.  The  Quaker  government  not  only  failed  to  furnish  protection  to  its 
citizens,  but  made  a  virtue  of  its  own  shortcomings  in  that  respect. 

Along  the  thinly  settled  borders,  in  1762-63,  two  thousand  persons  had 
been  killed  or  carried  off,  and  nearly  an  equal  number  of  families  driven 
from  their  homes.  "  The  frontier  people  of  Pennsylvania,"  says  Parkman, 
"  goaded  to  desperation  by  long-continued  suffering,  were  divided  between 
rage  against  the  Indians,  and  resentment  against  the  Quakers,  who  had 
yielded  them  cold  sympathy  and  inefficient  aid.  The  horror  and  fear,  grief 
and  fury,  with  which  these  men  looked  upon  the  mangled  remains  of  friends 
and  relatives,  set  language  at  defiance."  On  one  occasion,  the  frontiersmen 
sent  to  Philadelphia  a  wagon  laden  with  the  mangled  corpses  of  their  friends 
and  relatives,  who  had  fallen  by  Indian  butchery.  These  were  carried  along 
the  streets,  with  many  people  following,  cursing  the  Indians,  and  also  the 
Quakers  because  they  would  not  join  in  war  for  the  destruction  of  the  sav- 
ages. But  the  hideous  spectacle  failed  of  the  intended  effect,  and  the  As- 
sembly still  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  all  entreaties  for  more  effective  aid.  The 
Scotch- Irish  of  the  frontier  were  the  chief  sufferers  from  the  depredations 
of  the  Indians.  They  were  of  a  rude  and  hardy  stamp, — hunters,  scouts, 
rangers,  Indian  traders,  and  backwoods  farmers, — who  had  grown  up  with 
arms  in  their  hands,  and  been  trained  under  all  the  influences  of  the  war- 
like frontier.  They  fiercely  complained  that  they  were  interposed  as  a 
barrier  between  the  rest  of  the  province  and  a  ferocious  enemy,  and  that 
they  were  sacrificed  to  the  safety  of  men  who  looked  with  indifference  on 
their  miseries,  and  lost  no  opportunity  to  extenuate  and  smooth  away  the 
cruelties  of  their  destroyers. 

Along  the  western  frontiers  of  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  Virginia,  in 
the  summer  of  1763,  terror  reigned  supreme.  Indian  scalping  parties  were 
ranging  everywhere,  laying  waste  the  settlements,  destroying  the  harvests, 
and  butchering  men,  women,  and  children,  with  ruthless  fury.  Many  hun- 
dreds of  wretched  fugitives  flocked  for  refuge  to  Carlisle  and  the  other 
towns  of  the  border,  bringing  tales  of  inconceivable  horror.  Strong  parties 
of  armed  men,  who  went  out  to  reconnoitre  the  country,  found  every  habi- 
tation reduced  to  cinders,  and  the  half-burned  bodies  of  the  inmates  lying 
among  the  smouldering  ruins  ;  while  here  and  there  was  seen  some  miserable 
wretch,  scalped  and  tomahawked,  but  still  alive  and  conscious.  As  the 
summer  passed,  the  frontiers  of  Cumberland  County  were  completely  aban- 
doned by  the  Scotch-Irish  settlers,  many  of  whom,  not  content  with  seeking. 


The  Birthplace  of  American  Liberty  59 

refuge  at  Carlisle,  continued  their  flight  to  the  eastward,  and  pushed  on  to 
Lancaster  and  Philadelphia.  Carlisle  presented  a  most  deplorable  spectacle. 
A  multitude  of  the  refugees,  unable  to  find  shelter  in  the  town,  had  en- 
camped in  the  woods,  or  on  the  adjacent  fields,  erecting  huts  of  branches 
and  bark,  and  living  on  such  charity  as  the  slender  means  of  the  towns- 
people could  supply.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  dated  at 
Carlisle,  July  5,  1763  (Hazard's  Pennsylvania  Register,  iv.,  390)  : 

Nothing  could  exceed  the  terror  which  prevailed  from  house  to  house, 
from  town  to  town.  The  road  was  near  covered  with  women  and  children 
flying  to  Lancaster  and  Philadelphia.  The  pastor  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
went  at  the  head  of  his  congregation,  to  protect  and  encourage  them  on  the 
way.  A  few  retired  to  the  breastworks  for  safety.  The  alarm  once  given 
could  not  be  appeased. 

The  letter  from  which  the  following  extract  is  taken  appears  in  the 
Pennsylvania  Gazette,  No.  1804,  the  letter  being  dated  at  Carlisle,  July  12, 
1763: 

I  embrace  this  first  leisure  since  yesterday  morning  to  transmit  you  a 
brief  account  of  our  present  state  of  affairs  here,  which  indeed  is  very  dis- 
tressing ;  every  day,  almost,  affording  some  fresh  object  to  awaken  the  compas- 
sion, alarm  the  fears,  or  kindle  into  resentment  and  vengeance  every  sensible 
breast,  while  flying  families,  obliged  to  abandon  house  and  possessions,  to 
save  their  lives  by  an  hasty  escape  ;  mourning  widows,  bewailing  their  hus- 
bands surprised  and  massacred  by  savage  rage  ;  tender  parents,  lamenting 
the  fruits  of  their  own  bodies,  cropt  in  the  very  bloom  of  youth  by  a  barbar- 
ous hand  ;  with  relations  and  acquaintances  pouring  out  sorrow  for  murdered 
neighbors  and  friends,  present  a  varied  scene  of  mingled  distress. 

To-day  a  British  vengeance  begins  to  arise  in  the  breasts  of  our  men. 
One  of  them  that  fell  from  among  the  twelve,  as  he  was  just  expiring,  said 
to  one  of  his  fellows,  "  Here,  take  my  gun,  and  kill  the  first  Indian  you  see, 
and  all  shall  be  well." 

In  October,  1763,  several  companies  of  Rangers  were  formed  by  the 
Scotch-Irish  in  Lancaster  and  Cumberland  counties,  for  the  purpose  of 
patrolling  the  borders  and  giving  such  protection  as  they  were  able  to  the 
scattered  inhabitants.  One  of  these  companies,  starting  from  Paxtang  in 
Lancaster  County,  marched  to  the  relief  of  the  Connecticut  settlers  at  Wyo- 
ming, but  arrived  two  days  after  that  settlement  had  been  burned,  and  its 
inhabitants  killed,  imprisoned,  or  driven  off  by  the  Indians.  They  buried 
the  dead  bodies  of  those  who  had  fallen  in  the  massacre,  and  returned  to 
the  southern  settlements.  The  Quakers,  who  seemed  resolved  that  they 
would  neither  defend  the  people  of  the  frontier  nor  allow  them  to  defend 
themselves,  vehemently  inveighed  against  the  several  expeditions  up  the 
Susquehanna,  and  denounced  them  as  seditious  and  murderous.  "  Urged 
by  their  blind  prejudice  in  favor  of  the  Indians,"  says  Parkman,  "they 
insisted  that  the  bands  of  the  Upper  Susquehanna  were  friendly  to  the  Eng- 
lish ;  whereas,  with  the  single  exception  of  a  few  Moravian  converts  near 
Wyoming,  who  had  not  been  molested  by  the  whites,  there  could  be  no 


60  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

rational  doubt  that  these  savages  nourished  a  rancorous  and  malignant 
hatred  against  the  province.  But  the  Quakers,  removed  by  their  situation 
from  all  fear  of  the  tomahawk,  securely  vented  their  spite  against  the  bor- 
derers, and  doggedly  closed  their  ears  to  the  truth."  Meanwhile,  the  people 
of  the  frontier  besieged  the  Assembly  with  petitions  for  relief  ;  but  little 
heed  was  given  to  their  complaints. 

At  this  time,  the  provincial  government  had  the  custody  of  some  twenty 
Iroquois  Indians,  who  were  seated  on  Conestoga  Manor,  in  Lancaster  County, 
not  far  from  the  Susquehanna.  The  men  spent  part  of  their  time  in  hunting, 
and  lounged  away  the  rest  of  it  in  idleness  and  dissipation.  They  lived  by 
beggary,  and  the  sale  of  brooms,  baskets,  and  wooden  ladles,  made  by  the 
women.  In  the  immediate  vicinity  they  were  commonly  regarded  as  vaga- 
bonds, but  in  the  neighboring  settlements  they  were  looked  upon  as  secretly 
abetting  the  enemy,  acting  as  spies,  giving  shelter  to  scalping  parties,  and 
aiding  them  in  their  depredations.  Their  chief  had  repeatedly  threatened 
to  kill  various  white  men  and  women  of  the  neighborhood. 

About  the  middle  of  December,  word  was  brought  to  the  settlers  living 
at  Paxtang  (now  Harrisburg),  that  an  Indian,  known  to  have  committed 
depredations  in  the  vicinity,  had  been  traced  to  Conestoga.  Matthew  Smith, 
a  man  of  influence  and  popularity  among  his  associates,  called  together  a 
number  of  the  Paxtang  Rangers,  and  led  them  to  the  Conestoga  settlement. 
One  of  the  men  saw  an  Indian  issuing  from  a  house,  and  thought  that  he 
recognized  him  as  the  savage  who  had  killed  his  own  mother.  Firing 
his  rifle,  he  brought  the  Indian  down.  Then,  with  a  loud  shout,  the  furious 
mob  rushed  into  the  cabins,  and  killed  all  the  Indians  whom  they  found 
there,  some  six  in  number.  Fourteen  of  the  Conestogas  managed  to  escape, 
and,  fleeing  to  Lancaster,  were  given  a  place  of  refuge  in  the  county  jail. 
While  there,  word  was  again  carried  to  the  Paxtang  men  that  an  Indian, 
known  to  have  murdered  the  relatives  of  one  of  their  number,  was  among 
those  who  had  received  the  protection  of  the  Lancaster  magistrates.  This 
again  aroused  a  feeling  of  rage  and  resentment  amongst  the  Rangers.  On 
December  27th  some  fifty  of  them,  under  the  leadership  of  Lazarus  Stewart, 
marched  to  Lancaster,  broke  open  the  jail,  and  with  the  fury  of  a  mob 
massacred  every  Indian  contained  therein,  man,  woman,  and  child. 

This  is  said  by  some  to  have  been  the  first  instance  of  the  operation  of 
lynch  law  in  America  ;  and  many  blame  the  Scotch-Irish  for  its  introduction. 
Doubtless  the  odium  is  merited  ;  as  a  similar  incident  occurred  nearly 
twenty  years  later,  when  some  of  the  Scotch-Irish  of  Washington  County, 
Pennsylvania,  under  far  less  extenuating  circumstances,  murdered  in  cold 
blood  upwards  of  ninety  men,  women,  and  children  of  the  community  of 
Moravian  Indians  at  Gnadenhutten,  west  of  the  Ohio.  This  atavistic  ten- 
dency is  further  illustrated  in  our  own  day  by  the  lynching  of  negroes  in 
the  South,  the  frequency  of  which  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
southern  white  population  is  chiefly  of  Scotch-Irish  descent ;  these  examples 


The  Birthplace  of  American  Liberty  61 

of  perverted  administration  of  justice  finding  many  parallels  in  the  annals 
of  mediaeval  Scotland.  The  family  feuds  of  Kentucky,  which  for  the  most 
part  seem  peculiar  to  families  bearing  Scottish  names,  may  also  be  cited  as 
examples  and  counterparts  in  America  of  the  clan  and  family  feuds  formerly 
so  common  in  Scotland.  The  case  of  the  Regulators  of  North  Carolina  is 
another  well-known  instance  in  American  history  of  the  Scotch-Irish  back- 
woodsmen taking  the  administration  of  justice  into  their  own  hands,  when 
their  rulers  had  failed  to  provide  for  them  a  safe  government. 

But  the  uprising  of  the  "  Paxtang  Boys  "  was  more  than  that  of  a  mere 
lynching  mob,  bent  on  the  immediate  extermination  of  all  redskins  who 
came  within  its  reach.  It  was  a  protest,  bloody  and  atrocious,  it  is  true, 
made  by  the  harassed  frontiersmen  against  the  cowardly  policy  of  the 
Quaker  government.  The  Scotch-Irish  had  suffered  grievously  from  the 
Indian  outrages,  caused  in  a  great  measure  by  the  neglect  of  that  government 
to  provide  adequately  for  the  defence  of  the  province.  They  had  repeatedly 
appealed  to  the  Assembly,  and  their  petitions  for  help  had  been  rejected 
with  contempt.  They  were  unable  to  bring  about  a  change  for  the  better,  as 
all  the  political  power  was  in  the  hands  of  a  small  number  of  people.  They 
determined  finally  to  appeal  to  force,  and,  in  doing  so,  thought  in  their  first 
blind  rage  that  they  might  strike  a  blow  at  the  Quakers,  and  at  the  same 
time  rid  themselves  of  probable  enemies,  by  killing  the  Quakers'  wards.  The 
Assembly,  they  argued,  had  shown  infinitely  more  consideration  for  the 
feelings  of  the  Indians  than  it  had  for  the  wounds  of  the  Scotch-Irish.  It 
had  voted  the  savages  large  sums  of  money  as  presents,  and  indirectly  en- 
abled them  to  carry  on  an  exterminating  warfare  against  the  whites  ;  while 
at  the  same  time  it  refused  to  make  any  proper  defence  of  the  province 
against  the  marauders.  If  the  Quakers  were  unmoved  by  the  killing  of 
hundreds  of  their  Scotch-Irish  fellow  citizens,  whom  they  hated,  perhaps 
they  could  be  made  to  realize  the  condition  of  the  frontiers  by  the  killing  of 
their  own  Indian  wards,  whom  they  loved  and  cherished. 

The  Paxtang  Rangers,  in  their  bitter  resentment  against  the  government, 
lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  it  is  better  for  twenty  guilty  men  to  escape  than 
for  one  innocent  man  to  suffer.  Their  own  miseries  made  them  believe  in 
all  sincerity  that  the  only  good  Indian  is  a  dead  one  ;  and  that  they  them- 
selves were  the  agents  appointed  of  Providence  to  make  all  Indians  good. 

The  Reverend  John  Elder  was  captain  of  the  Paxtang  Rangers,  and 
minister  of  Paxtang  and  Derry  congregations,  from  which  the  Rangers  were 
enlisted.  He  tried  in  vain  to  dissuade  his  men  from  going  to  Conestoga  on 
their  bloody  errand,  and  desisted  only  after  they  had  broken  away  from  him 
in  anger.  On  the  27th  December,  1763,  the  reverend  captain  wrote  to 
Governor  Penn  as  follows  : 

The  storm  which  had  been  so  long  gathering,  has  at  length  exploded. 
Had  Government  removed  the  Indians  from  Conestoga,  as  was  frequently 
urged  without  success,  this  painful  catastrophe  might  have  been  avoided. 


62       ^         The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

What  could  I  do  with  men  heated  to  madness  ?  All  that  I  could  do  was 
done.  I  expostulated,  but  life  and  reason  were  set  at  defiance,  and  yet 
the  men,  in  private  life,  were  virtuous  and  respectable  —  not  cruel,  but 
mild  and  merciful.  .  .  .  The  time  will  arrive  when  each  palliating  cir- 
cumstance will  be  calmly  weighed.  This  deed,  magnified  into  the  blackest 
of  crimes,  shall  be  considered  one  of  those  youthful  ebullitions  of  wrath 
caused  by  momentary  excitement,  to  which  human  infirmity  is  subjected. 

The  different  proclamations  of  Governor  Penn,  and  the  action  of  the 
Assembly  relative  to  this  transaction,  created  intense  excitement  on  the 
frontiers  of  Lancaster,  Berks,  and  Northampton  counties,  and  meetings  were 
held  at  which  the  provincial  authorities  were  severely  condemned.  Repre- 
sentatives were  appointed  to  proceed  to  Philadelphia  and  demand  redress 
and  protection.  Accompanying  them  were  large  delegations  from  the 
"back  inhabitants." 

The  approach  of  the  frontiersmen  caused  great  uneasiness  in  Philadel- 
phia. Their  force  was  magnified  by  rumor  to  many  thousands.  Six  com- 
panies of  foot,  one  of  artillery,  and  two  troops  of  horse  were  formed  to 
oppose  them  :  and  some  thousands  of  the  inhabitants,  including  many 
Quakers,  were  prepared  to  render  assistance,  in  case  an  attempt  should  be 
made  upon  the  town.  The  barracks,  which  were  under  the  protection  of  the 
regular  troops,  were  fortified,  several  works  being  thrown  up  about  them, 
and  eight  pieces  of  cannon  mounted. 

On  arriving  at  Germantown,  the  Paxtang  men  were  met  by  commission- 
ers to  whom  they  made  known  their  grievances.  Colonel  Matthew  Smith 
and  James  Gibson  then  accompanied  the  commissioners  to  Philadelphia, 
where  they  met  the  Governor  and  the  Assembly,  and  presented  their  de- 
mands. In  the  meantime,  with  few  exceptions,  the  frontiersmen  who  accom^ 
panied  them  returned  home. 

The  memorial  of  Gibson  and  Smith  was  sustained  by  a  "  Declaration  " 
bearing  fifteen  hundred  signatures. 

In  a  letter  written  at  this  time,  Governor  Penn  says  :  "  We  expect  a 
thousand  of  back  inhabitants  in  town,  to  insist  upon  the  Assembly  granting 
their  request  with  regard  to  the  increase  of  representatives,  to  put  them  upon  an 
equality  with  the  rest  of  the  counties.  They  have  from  time  to  time  presented 
several  petitions  for  the  purpose,  which  have  been  always  disregarded  by 
the  House  ;  for  which  purpose  they  intend  to  come  in  person.  I  am  of 
opinion  they  [the  Assembly]  will  never  come  into  [agreement],  as  it  will 
be  the  means  of  lessening  the  power  of  the  governing  few  in  this  Province." 

The  petition  presented  by  these  Scotch-Irish  citizens,  in  enumerating 
their  grievances,  mentions  as  the  chief  one  the  fact  that  they  were  not 
permitted  a  proportionate  share  in  the  government  of  the  province.  This 
petition  is  printed  in  full  in  the  Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania,  vol.  ix.,  pp. 
138-145,  and  its  principal  contents  are  as  follows  : 

We,  Matthew  Smith  and  James  Gibson,  in  behalf  of  ourselves  and  his 


The  Birthplace  of  American  Liberty  63 

Majesty's  faithful  and  loyal  subjects,  the  inhabitants  of  the  frontier  counties 
of  Lancaster,  York,  Cumberland,  Berks,  and  Northampton,  humbly  beg 
leave  to  remonstrate  and  lay  before  you  the  following  grievances,  which  we 
submit  to  your  wisdom  for  redress. 

First,  We  apprehend  that,  as  freemen  and  English  subjects,  we  have  an 
indisputable  title  to  the  same  privileges  and  immunities  with  his  Majesty's 
other  subjects  who  reside  in  the  interior  counties  of  Philadelphia,  Chester, 
and  Bucks,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  excluded  from  an  equal  share 
with  them  in  the  very  important  privilege  of  legislation  :  nevertheless,  con- 
trary to  the  Proprietor's  charter,  and  the  acknowledged  principles  of  com- 
mon justice  and  equity,  our  five  counties  are  restrained  from  electing  more 
than  ten  representatives,  viz.,  four  for  Lancaster,  two  for  York,  two  for 
Cumberland,  one  for  Berks,  and  one  for  Northampton,  while  the  three  coun- 
ties and  city  of  Philadelphia,  Chester,  and  Bucks  elect  twenty-six.  This 
we  humbly  conceive  is  oppressive,  unequal,  and  unjust,  the  cause  of  many 
of  our  grievances,  and  an  infringement  of  our  natural  privileges  of  freedom 
and  equality ;  wherefore,  we  humbly  pray  that  we  may  no  longer  be 
deprived  of  an  equal  number  with  the  three  aforesaid  counties,  to  represent 
us  in  Assembly." 

Secondly,  We  understand  that  a  bill  is  now  before  the  House  of  As- 
sembly, wherein  it  is  provided  that  such  persons  as  shall  be  charged  with 
killing  any  Indians  in  Lancaster  county,  shall  not  be  tried  in  the  county 
where  the  fact  was  committed,  but  in  the  counties  of  Philadelphia,  Chester, 
or  Bucks.  This  is  manifestly  to  deprive  British  subjects  of  their  known 
privileges,  to  cast  an  eternal  reproach  upon  whole  counties,  as  if  they  were 
unfit  to  serve  their  country  in  the  quality  of  jurymen,  and  to  contradict  the 
well-known  laws  of  the  British  nation  in  a  point  whereon  life,  liberty,  and 
security  essentially  depend,  namely,  that  of  being  tried  by  their  equals,  in 
the  neighborhood  where  their  own,  their  accusers,  and  the  witnesses'  char- 
acter and  credit,  with  the  circumstances  of  the  fact  are  best  known,  and 
instead  thereof  putting  their  lives  in  the  hands  of  strangers,  who  may  as 
justly  be  suspected  of  partiality  to  as  the  frontier  counties  can  be  of  preju- 
dices against  Indians.     .     .     . 

Thirdly,  During  the  late  and  present  Indian  War,  the  frontiers  of  this 
Province  have  been  repeatedly  attacked  and  ravaged  by  skulking  parties  of 
the  Indians,  who  have  with  the  most  savage  cruelty  murdered  men,  women, 
and  children,  without  distinction,  and  have  reduced  near  a  thousand  fam- 
ilies to  the  most  extreme  distress.  It  grieves  us  to  the  very  heart  to  see 
such  of  our  frontier  inhabitants  as  have  escaped  savage  fury  with  the  loss  of 
their  parents,  their  children,  their  wives,  or  relatives,  left  destitute  by  the 
public,  and  exposed  to  the  most  cruel  poverty  and  wretchedness,  while 
upwards  of  an  hundred  and  twenty  of  these  savages,  who  are  with  great 
reason  suspected  of  being  guilty  of  these  horrid  barbarities,  under  the  mask 
of  friendship,  have  procured  themselves  to  be  taken  under  the  protection  of 
the  Government  with  a  view  to  elude  the  fury  of  the  brave  relatives  of  the 
murdered,  and  are  now  maintained  at  the  public  expense.  Some  of  these 
Indians,  now  in  the  Barracks  at  Philadelphia,  are  confessedly  a  part  of  the 
Wyalusing  Indians,  which  tribe  is  now  at  war  with  us,  and  the  others  are  the 
Moravian  Indians,  who,  living  with  us  under  the  cloak  of  friendship,  carried 
on  a  correspondence  with  our  known  enemies  on  the  Great  Island.  We 
cannot  but  observe,  with  sorrow  and  indignation,  that  some  persons  in  this 
Province  are  at  pains  to  extenuate  the  barbarous  cruelties  practised  by  these 
savages  on  our  murdered  brethren  and  relatives,  which  are  shocking  to 


64  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

human  nature,  and  must  pierce  every  heart  but  that  of  the  hardened  perpe- 
trators or  their  abettors  ;  nor  is  it  less  distressing  to  hear  others  pleading 
that  although  the  Wyalusing  tribe  is  at  war  with  us,  yet  that  part  of  it  which 
is  under  the  protection  of  the  Government,  may  be  friendly  to  the  English, 
and  innocent.  In  what  nation  under  the  sun  was  it  ever  the  custom  that 
when  a  neighboring  nation  took  up  arms,  not  an  individual  should  be 
touched  but  only  the  persons  that  offered  hostilities  ?  Who  ever  proclaimed 
war  with  a  part  of  a  nation,  and  not  with  the  whole  ?  Had  these  Indians 
disapproved  of  the  perfidy  of  their  tribe,  and  been  willing  to  cultivate  and 
preserve  friendship  with  us,  why  did  they  not  give  notice  of  the  war  before 
it  happened,  as  it  is  known  to  be  the  result  of  long  deliberations,  and  a  pre- 
concerted combination  among  them  ?  Why  did  they  not  leave  their  tribe 
immediately,  and  come  among  us  before  there  was  ground  to  suspect  them, 
or  war  was  actually  waged  with  their  tribe  ?  No,  they  stayed  amongst 
them,  were  privy  to  their  murders  and  ravages,  until  we  had  destroyed 
their  provisions,  and  when  they  could  no  longer  subsist  at  home,  they  come, 
not  as  deserters  but  as  friends,  to  be  maintained  through  the  winter,  that 
they  may  be  able  to  scalp  and  butcher  us  in  the  spring. 

And  as  to  the  Moravian  Indians,  there  are  strong  grounds  at  least  to 
suspect  their  friendship,  as  it  is  known  that  they  carried  on  a  correspond- 
ence with  our  enemies  on  the  Great  Island.  We  killed  three  Indians  going 
from  Bethlehem  to  the  Great  Island  with  blankets,  ammunition,  and  pro- 
visions, which  is  an  undeniable  proof  that  the  Moravian  Indians  were  in 
confederacy  with  our  open  enemies  ;  and  we  cannot  but  be  filled  with 
indignation  to  hear  this  action  of  ours  painted  in  the  most  odious  and 
detestable  colors,  as  if  we  had  inhumanly  murdered  our  guides,  who  pre- 
served us  from  perishing  in  the  woods,  when  we  only  killed  three  of  our 
known  enemies,  who  attempted  to  shoot  us  when  we  surprised  them.  And, 
besides  all  this,  we  understand  that  one  of  these  very  Indians  is  proved,  by 
the  oath  of  Stinson's  widow,  to  be  the  very  person  that  murdered  her  hus- 
band. How,  then,  comes  it  to  pass,  that  he  alone,  of  all  the  Moravian 
Indians,  should  join  the  enemy  to  murder  that  family  ?  Or  can  it  be  sup- 
posed that  any  enemy  Indians,  contrary  to  their  known  custom  of  making 
war,  should  penetrate  into  the  heart  of  a  settled  country  to  burn,  plunder, 
and  murder  the  inhabitants,  and  not  molest  any  houses  in  their  return,  or 
ever  be  seen  or  heard  of  ?  Or  how  can  we  account  for  it,  that  no  ravages 
have  been  committed  in  Northampton  county  since  the  removal  of  the 
Moravian  Indians,  when  the  Great  Cove  has  been  struck  since  ?  These 
things  put  it  beyond  doubt  with  us  that  the  Indians  now  at  Philadelphia  are 
his  Majesty's  perfidious  enemies,  and,  therefore,  to  protect  and  maintain 
them  at  the  public  expense,  while  our  suffering  brethren  on  the  frontiers 
are  almost  destitute  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  are  neglected  by  the  pub- 
lic, is  sufficient  to  make  us  mad  with  rage,  and  tempt  us  to  do  what  nothing 
but  the  most  violent  necessity  can  vindicate.  We  humbly  and  earnestly 
pray,  therefore,  that  those  enemies  of  his  Majesty  may  be  removed  as  soon 
as  possible  out  of  the  Province. 

Fourthly ',  We  humbly  conceive  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  maxims  of  good 
policy,  and  extremely  dangerous  to  our  frontiers,  to  suffer  any  Indians,  of 
what  tribe  soever,  to  live  within  the  inhabited  parts  of  this  Province  while 
we  are  engaged  in  an  Indian  war,  as  experience  has  taught  us  that  they  are 
all  perfidious,  and  their  claim  to  freedom  and  independency  puts  it  in  their 
power  to  act  as  spies,  to  entertain  and  give  intelligence  to  our  enemies,  and 
to  furnish  them  with  provisions  and  warlike  stores.     To  this  fatal  intercourse 


The  Birthplace  of  American   Liberty  65 

between  our  pretended  friends  and  open  enemies,  we  must  ascribe  the 
greatest  part  of  the  ravages  and  murders  that  have  been  committed  in  the 
course  of  this  and  the  last  Indian  war.  We  therefore  pray  that  this  griev- 
ance be  taken  under  consideration  and  remedied. 

Fifthly,  We  cannot  help  lamenting  that  no  provision  has  been  hitherto 
made,  that  such  of  our  frontier  inhabitants  as  have  been  wounded  in  defence 
of  the  Province,  their  lives  and  liberties,  may  be  taken  care  of,  and  cured  of 
their  wounds  at  the  public  expense.  We  therefore  pray  that  this  grievance 
may  be  redressed. 

Sixthly,  In  the  late  Indian  war,  this  Province,  with  others  of  his  Majesty's 
colonies,  gave  rewards  for  Indian  scalps,  to  encourage  the  seeking  them  in 
their  own  country,  as  the  most  likely  means  of  destroying  or  reducing  them 
to  reason,  but  no  such  encouragement  has  been  given  in  this  war,  which  has 
damped  the  spirits  of  many  brave  men,  who  are  willing  to  venture  their  lives 
in  parties  against  the  enemy.  We  therefore  pray  that  public  rewards  may 
be  proposed  for  Indian  scalps,  which  may  be  adequate  to  the  dangers 
attending  enterprises  of  this  nature. 

Seventhly,  We  daily  lament  that  numbers  of  our  nearest  and  dearest 
relatives  are  still  in  captivity  among  the  savage  heathen,  to  be  trained  up  in 
all  their  ignorance  and  barbarity,  or  to  be  tortured  to  death  with  all  the 
contrivances  of  Indian  cruelty,  for  attempting  to  make  their  escape  from 
bondage  ;  we  see  they  pay  no  regard  to  the  many  solemn  promises  they  have 
made  to  restore  our  friends  who  are  in  bondage  amongst  them.  We 
therefore  earnestly  pray  that  no  trade  may  hereafter  be  permitted  to  be 
carried  on  with  them  until  our  brethren  and  relatives  are  brought  home 
to  us. 

Eighthly,  We  complain  that  a  certain  society  of  people  in  this  Province 
[meaning  the  Quakers]  in  the  late  Indian  war,  and  at  several  treaties  held  by 
the  King's  representatives,  openly  loaded  the  Indians  with  presents,  and  that 
I[srael]  P[emberton],  a  leader  of  the  said  society,  in  defiance  of  all  government, 
not  only  abetted  our  Indian  enemies,  but  kept  up  a  private  intelligence  with 
them,  and  publicly  received  from  them  a  belt  of  wampum,  as  if  he  had  been 
our  Governor,  or  authorized  by  the  King  to  treat  with  his  enemies.  By  this 
means,  the  Indians  have  been  taught  to  despise  us  as  a  weak  and  disunited 
people,  and  from  this  fatal  source  have  arose  many  of  our  calamities  under 
which  we  groan.  We  humbly  pray,  therefore,  that  this  grievance  may  be 
redressed,  and  that  no  private  subject  be  hereafter  permitted  to  treat  with, 
or  carry  on  a  correspondence  with,  our  enemies. 

Ninthly,  we  cannot  but  observe  with  sorrow,  that  Fort  Augusta,  which 
has  been  very  expensive  to  this  Province,  has  afforded  us  but  little  assistance 
during  this  or  the  last  war.  The  men  that  were  stationed  at  that  place 
neither  helped  our  distressed  inhabitants  to  save  their  crops,  nor  did  they 
attack  our  enemies  in  their  towns,  or  patrol  on  our  frontiers.  We  humbly 
request  that  proper  measures  may  be  taken  to  make  that  garrison  more 
serviceable  to  us  in  our  distress,  if  it  can  be  done. 

N.  B.  We  are  far  from  intending  any  reflection  against  the  commanding 
officer  stationed  at  Augusta,  as  we  presume  his  conduct  was  always  directed 
by  those  from  whom  he  received  his  orders. 

Signed  on  behalf  of  ourselves,  and  by  appointment  of  a  great  number  of 
the  frontier  inhabitants. 
February  13th,  1764. 

Matthew  Smith, 
James  Gibson.  ,0 


66  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

No  action  on  the  two  memorials  was  taken  by  the  Assembly,  but  a  bill 
was  passed  granting  supplies  for  the  ensuing  campaign  ;  and  the  consequent 
military  preparations,  together  with  a  threatened  renewal  of  the  war  on  the 
part  of  the  Indians,  engrossed  the  minds  of  the  frontier  people,  and  caused 
the  excitements  of  the  winter  to  be  forgotten. 

The  nature  of  some  earlier  conflicts  between  the  Assembly  and  the  State 
Government  of  Pennsylvania  is  thus  alluded  to  by  Franklin  in  chapter  nine 
of  his  Autobiography  : 

These  public  quarrels  were  all  at  bottom  owing  to  the  Proprietaries,  our 
hereditary  governors  ;  who,  when  any  expense  was  to  be  incurred  for  the 
defence  of  their  province,  with  incredible  meanness  instructed  their  deputies 
to  pass  no  act  for  levying  the  necessary  taxes,  unless  their  vast  estates  were 
in  the  same  act  expressly  exonerated  ;  and  they  had  even  taken  the  bonds 
of  these  deputies  to  observe  such  instructions.  .  .  .  The  Assemblies  for 
three  years  held  out  against  this  injustice,  though  constrained  to  bend  at 
last. 

The  significance  of  the  contest  between  the  Assembly  and  the  Proprietary 
may  be  inferred  from  a  perusal  of  the  message  sent  to  the  Assembly  by  Gov- 
ernor Morris,  May  16,  1755,  which  charges  some  of  its  members,  among  other 
things,  with  a  desire  for  independence"  This  portion  of  the  message  may 
well  be  reproduced  in  connection  with  the  present  consideration  of  its  sub- 
ject. It  is  to  be  found  in  volume  vi.  of  the  Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania, 
at  pp.  386,  387  : 

Gentlemen  : 

When  I  summoned  You  together  on  the  Seventeenth  of  March  last  I 
was  in  Hopes  You  would  bring  with  you  Inclinations  to  promote  the  Publick 
Service  by  Granting  the  Supplies  expected  by  the  Crown  and  by  putting 
this  Province  into  a  Posture  of  Defence  ;  but  I  am  sorry  to  find  that  neither 
the  Danger  to  which  this  Country  stands  exposed,  nor  his  Majesty's  repeated 
and  affectionate  calls,  have  had  any  Weight  with  You. 

The  Bill  you  sent  me  for  striking  Twenty-Five  Thousand  Pounds  was  of 
a  more  extraordinary  Nature  than  that  I  refused  my  Assent  to  in  the  Winter 
Sessions,  as  it  gave  General  Braddock  a  Power  over  no  more  than  Five 
Thousand  Pounds,  and  subjected  the  remaining  Twenty  Thousand  and  all 
the  Surplus  of  the  Excise  for  Eleven  Years  to  come  to  the  Disposition  of 
some  of  the  Members  of  your  House,  and  to  the  Assembly  for  the  Time 
being. 

The  offering  Money  in  a  Way  and  upon  Terms  that  You  very  well 
knew  I  could  not  consistent  with  my  Duty  to  the  Crown  consent  to,  is  in  my 
Opinion  trifling  with  the  King's  Commands,  and  amounts  to  a  Refusal  to  give 
at  all,  and  I  am  satisfied  will  be  seen  in  this  Light  by  my  Superiors,  who  by 
your  Bill  above  mentioned,  which  I  shall  lay  before  them,  and  by  the  whole 
of  your  Conduct  since  You  have  been  made  acquainted  with  the  designs  of 
the  French,  will  be  convinced  that  your  Resolutions  are  and  have  been  to 
take  Advantage  of  your  Country's  Danger,  to  aggrandize  and  render  perma- 
nent your  own  Power  and  Authority,  and  to  destroy  that  of  the  Crown. 
That  it  is  for  this  Purpose  and  to  promote  your  Scheme  of  future  Independency 
You  are  grasping  at  the  Disposition  of  all  Publick  Money  and  at  the  Power 


The  Birthplace  of  American  Liberty  67 

of  filling  all  the  offices  of  Government  especially  those  of  the  Revenue,  and 
when  his  Majesty  and  the  Nation  are  at  the  Expense  of  sending  Troops  for 
the  Protection  of  these  Colonies,  You  refuse  to  furnish  them  with  Provisions 
and  necessary  Carriages  tho'  your  country  is  full  of  both,  unless  You  can  at 
the  same  Time  encroach  upon  the  Rights  of  the  Crown  and  increase  your 
own  Power,  already  too  great  for  a  Branch  of  a  Subordinate  dependant 
Government  so  remote  from  the  principal  Seat  of  Power. 

In  an  address  delivered  before  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania, 
in  1882,  upon  "  Pennsylvania's  Formative  Influence  upon  Federal 
Institutions,"  Mr.  William  A.  Wallace  presented  some  facts  which  may  well 
be  given  a  place  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  taxation  without  repre- 
sentation : 

The  earliest  instance  that  I  can  find  in  which  the  issue  of  no  taxation 
without  representation  was  sharply  defined  in  America  was  that  of  1740, 
between  the  city  of  Philadelphia  and  the  Provincial  Assembly.  The  city 
corporation,  consisting  of  the  mayor  and  common  council,  possessed  exten- 
sive powers  of  taxation,  and  it  was  proposed  to  take  them  away  and  vest 
them  in  commissioners  and  assessors,  to  be  elected  by  the  people.  A  bill 
for  that  purpose  was  passed  by  the  Assembly,  but  the  Governor  refused  to 
sign  it.  The  quarrel  was  really  between  the  proprietary  party  and  the  people. 
The  city  corporation  was  a  close  body,  originally  composed  of  persons  nom- 
inated by  William  Penn,  and  keeping  up  succession  by  the  election  of 
councilmen  and  aldermen  by  those  already  in  office,  so  that  the  policy  of 
the  corporation  guarded  from  the  interference  of  persons  whose  views  might 
have  differed  from  the  councilmen.  In  the  controversy  the  Assembly  struck 
the  key-note  which  sounded  thirty-six  years  afterward  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  The  ground  was  taken  that  as  the  inhabitants  of  the  city 
had  no  right  to  choose  members  of  the  city  corporation,  the  latter  should 
not  have  the  power  of  taxing  the  people  without  their  own  consent  ;  that 
the  King  claimed  no  power  of  levying  taxes  without  the  consent  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  that  there  should  be  no  taxation  without  representation.12 

This  action  was  twenty-five  years  before  the  resolutions  of  the  House  of 
Burgesses  of  Virginia,  introduced  by  Patrick  Henry,  were  passed,  and, 
whilst  it  may  be  true,  as  Mr.  Jefferson  states,  that  Mr.  Henry  certainly 
gave  the  "  first  impulse  to  the  ball  of  the  Revolution  "  by  these  resolutions, 
yet  the  people  of  the  colonies  were  familiar  with  the  controversies  in  Penn- 
sylvania, and  these  and  the  teachings  of  Franklin  prepared  the  public  mind 
for  its  final  attitude  of  resistance  to  the  death.  Mr.  Graham,  in  his  history 
of  the  colonies,  says  that  when  in  the  beginning  of  1764,  Lord  Granville  in- 
formed the  colonies  of  his  purpose  to  procure  an  Act  of  Parliament,  im- 
posing a  stamp  duty  on  the  colonies,  which  ultimately  was  carried  into 
execution,  and  aroused  the  patriotic  fervor  and  indignation  of  all  of  the 
people,  the  Pennsylvania  Assembly  "  was  distinguished  above  all  others  by 
the  temperate,  firm,  dignified,  and  consistent  strain  of  its  debates  and  pro- 
ceedings." It  was  declared  there  that  this  proposition  was  a  deviation  from 
national  usage,  unconstitutional,  unjust,  and  unnecessary,  and  that  Parlia- 
ment had  no  right  to  tax  the  colonies  at  all.  They  recognized  the  right  of 
the  Crown  to  ask  for  supplies,  and  expressed  their  willingness  to  grant 
them,  but  utterly  denied  the  power  and  authority  of  the  ministers  and 
Parliament  to  tax  them.  Virginia  and  New  York  also  gave  positive  con- 
tradiction  to   this   claim  of   right    to   tax   the   colonies,  and   affirmed  its 


68  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

unconstitutionality.  Differing  from  Pennsylvania  in  her  dignified  silence, 
they  sent  petitions  to  both  King  and  Parliament,  but  that  of  Virginia  weakened 
its  force  by  distinguishing  between  the  power  and  the  right  to  tax,  for,  while 
denying  the  right,  the  exertion  of  the  supposed  power  was  deprecated  in  a 
manner  which  indicated  that  no  opposition  beyond  remonstrance  was  in- 
tended. They  denied  the  right,  recognized  the  power,  and  breathed  not  a 
syllable  that  implied  either  the  power  or  the  will  to  resist  the  infliction.  The 
petition  of  New  York  was  not  presented.  No  member  of  Parliament  was 
found  willing  to  present  it,  and  it  reached  England  after  the  Stamp  Act  was 
in  progress. 

Massachusetts,  on  the  contrary,  amid  her  divided  councils,  not  only  did 
not  boldly  stand  against  the  right  to  tax,  but  addressed  the  House  of  Com- 
mons by  a  petition  imploring  for  favor.  The  practical  effect  was  to  sanction 
the  pretensions  of  Parliament  to  enforce  its  right  to  enact  and  execute  the 
Stamp  Act,  and  to  place  the  hope  of  the  colonies  upon  the  lenity  and  indul- 
gence of  the  British  Government.  The  bold  and  unhesitating  declaration 
announced  in  our  Assembly  under  the  lead  of  Dickinson  and  Franklin 
against  the  right,  and  the  denial  of  the  power  by  its  record,  was  followed 
by  no  other  of  the  colonies,  but  Franklin  in  advocating  the  doctrine  thus 
laid  down,  in  his  controversy  with  British  authority,  as  our  representative, 
quoted  Philip  De  Comines  and  the  famous  declaration  :  "  There  is  neither 
King  nor  sovereign  lord  on  earth,  who  has  beyond  his  own  domain  power 
to  lay  the  imposition  of  one  farthing  on  his  subjects,  without  the  consent  of 
those  who  pay  it,  unless  he  does  it  by  tyranny  and  violence."  Here,  as  in 
other  things,  we  find  Pennsylvania  and  her  sons  in  the  advance,  and  this, 
too,  in  face  of  the  fact  that  the  charter  to  Penn  at  least  impliedly  recognized 
the  right  of  Parliament  to  tax.  When  this  first  step  in  the  oppressive 
statutes  of  the  mother  country,  which  ultimately  brought  armed  resistance 
and  independence,  was  taken,  and  the  Stamp  Act  was  a  fixed  fact,  Virginia, 
under  the  fiery  lead  of  Henry,  declared  through  a  small  majority  of  its 
House  of  Burgesses  that  "  the  most  substantial  and  distinguished  part  of 
their  political  birthright  was  the  privilege  of  being  taxed  exclusively  by 
themselves,  or  their  representatives,"  and  thus  primarily  voiced  the  uni- 
versal thought.  Massachusetts,  following  Otis,  Adams,  and  Hancock,  at  the 
same  hour  initiated  her  call  for  a  convention  of  the  colonies  for  unity  and 
resistance.  Our  Assembly  with  unanimous  voice  placed  upon  record  their 
protest,  that  "  the  only  legal  representatives  of  the  people  were  the  persons 
elected  to  serve  as  members  of  the  Assembly,  and  that  the  taxation  of  the 
Province  by  any  other  persons  whatsoever  was  unconstitutional,  unjust, 
subversive  of  liberty,  and  destructive  of  happiness." 

The  firm  and  decided  attitude  of  the  colonies,  and  the  representations 
and  genius  of  Franklin,  then  the  agent  of  Pennsylvania  at  London,  so  pre- 
vailed upon  Pitt  and  those  in  power,  that  the  Stamp  Act  was  repealed 
within  two  years  from  its  enactment,  and  the  opening  of  the  bloody  drama 
of  the  Revolution  was  postponed  for  further  contests  between  prerogative 
and  arbitrary  power  on  the  one  hand,  and  patriotic  independence  and  per- 
sonal right  on  the  other.  They  soon  came,  and  in  them  we  trace  the  spirit 
of  feudal  control  combating  the  rights  of  the  individual,  which,  since  the 
foundation  of  the  colony,  had  been  struggling  for  the  mastery. 


The  Birthplace  of  American  Liberty  69 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IV. 

!P.  59,  25th  edition. 

8  In  his  conversation  with  Webster  in  1824,  Jefferson  pronounced  a  further  eulogy  on 
the  character  of  Patrick  Henry  in  these  words:  "It  is  not  now  easy  to  say  what  we 
should  have  done  without  Patrick  Henry.  He  was  far  before  all  in  maintaining  the  spirit  of 
the  Revolution.  His  influence  was  most  extensive  with  the  members  from  the  upper 
counties  ;  and  his  boldness  and  their  votes  overawed  and  controlled  the  more  timid  and 
aristocratic  gentlemen  of  the  lower  part  of  the  State.  .  .  .  After  all,  it  must  be  allowed 
that  he  was  our  leader  in  the  measures  of  the  Revolution  in  Virginia,  and  in  that  respect 
more  is  due  to  him  than  to  any  other  person.  If  we  had  not  had  him  we  should  have  got 
on  pretty  well  as  you  did  by  a  number  of  men  of  nearly  equal  talents  but  he  left  all  of  us 
far  behind." — Curtis,  Life  of  Daniel  Webster,  vol.  i.,  p.  585. 

3  Works,  vol.  x.,  pp.  244,  245,  247. 

4  See,  also,  Works  of  John  Adams,  vol.  x.,  pp.  274,  277,  279,  280,  282,  289,  292,  298, 
314,  317,  320. 

5  Works,  vol.  x.,  p.  272. 

6  The  influence  of  this  controversy  [over  the  Writs  of  Assistance  in  1761]  in  producing 
the  Revolution,  is  not  wholly  due  to  the  fiery  eloquence  of  Otis,  whose  words,  said  John 
Adams,  "breathed  into  the  nation  the  breath  of  life,"  nor  to  the  range  of  his  argument 
.  .  .  but  to  their  effect  upon  th*e  commercial  interest  —  then  the  leading  one  —  of  New 
England  ;  for  if  the  latent  powers  of  these  writs  were  set  free  and  used  by  the  revenue 
officers,  the  commerce  of  Boston,  Salem,  and  Newport  would  have  been  effectually 
crippled. —  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  II,  12.  Mellen 
Chamberlain,   The  Revolution  Impending. 

In  the  debate  in  the  Commons  on  the  Boston  Port  Bill  and  the  infraction  of  the  charter 
of  Massachusetts,  Sir  Richard  Sutton  said  that  "even  in  the  most  quiet  times  the  disposi- 
tion to  oppose  the  laws  of  this  country  was  strongly  ingrafted  in  the  Americans,  and  all 
their  actions  conveyed  a  spirit  and  wish  for  independence.  If  you  ask  an  American  who  is 
his  master,  he  will  tell  you  he  has  none,  nor  any  governor  but  Jesus  Christ."  {Adolphus,  ii., 
108) — N.  and  C.  Hist.,  vi.,  p.  232,  note. 

I  Life  and  Writings  of  "fames  Madison,  vol.  iii.,  p.  105. 

8  See  Franklin's  Works,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  376,  377  ;  and  for  the  whole  history  of  his  plan  of 
union  and  its  attendant  circumstances,  ibid.,  pp.  343  to  387,   and  his  Autobiography,  ch.  ix. 

9  The  number  of  taxables  in  Lancaster,  Cumberland,  York,  Northampton,  and  Berks 
counties  in  1760  was  15,437,  and  in  Bucks,  Chester,  and  Philadelphia,  16,230. 

10  See  Parkman,  Conspiracy  of  Pontiac,  ch.  xxv.,  and  his  Appendix  E. 

II  On  this  subject  see  also  Appendix  E  (Examination  of  Joseph  Galloway). 

12  See  Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  375-420.  The  principle  is  laid 
down  in  a  message  from  the  Assembly  to  the  Governor  in  May,  1740,  as  follows  (p.  408) : 
"  Nor  would  any  part  of  the  bill,  if  passed  into  a  law,  debar  them  from  levying  money  on 
the  inhabitants  to  these  purposes,  if  they  were  authorized  by  their  charter  so  to  do,  altho' 
in  our  opinion,  it  ought  not  nor  cannot  give  any  such  power,  for  the  following  reasons : 
I.  The  members  of  the  corporation  were  originally  named  by  the  Proprietor,  and  have 
since  chosen  their  successors  ;  and  as  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  have  not  any  right  to  chuse 
them,  it  is  not  reasonable  they  should  have  the  power  of  levying  money  on  the  inhabitants 
without  their  consent.  2.  The  King  himself  claims  no  power  of  laying  and  levying  taxes 
on  his  subjects  but  by  common  consent  in  Parliament ;  and  as  all  the  powers  of  government 
in  this  province  are  derived  under  him,  they  cannot  be  greater  in  this  respect  than  those  from 
which  they  are  derived,"  etc. 


CHAPTER  V 

LIBERTY  OF  SPEECH  AND  CONSCIENCE  DEFINITELY  ESTAB- 
LISHED IN  AMERICA  BY  MEN  OF  SCOTTISH  BLOOD 

WE  have  now  cited  some  authentic  instances  of  vigorous  and  prolonged 
resistance  to  the  monarchical  principle  of  taxing  the  many  for  the 
benefit  of  the  few,  as  well  as  the  promulgation  of  the  doctrine  of  no  taxation 
without  representation,  all  of  which  occurred  many  years  before  the  passage 
of  the  Stamp  Act.  We  have  also  had  the  example  of  an  armed  demonstration 
on  the  part  of  the  Scotch-Irish  of  Pennsylvania  in  opposition  to  the  first- 
named  principle,  at  a  time  when  the  Massachusetts  Independence  "  infant  " 
was  yet  in  its  swaddling  clothes. 

Nor  are  these  all.  The  early  pages  of  American  colonial  history  contain 
numerous  like  instances  of  resistance  to  arbitrary  power  ever  since  the  time 
of  the  first  great  outbreak  of  the  American  spirit  in  opposition  to  old- 
world  traditions  and  oppressions  which  took  place  in  1676  in  the  revolt  of 
the  English  Nathaniel  Bacon  and  the  Scottish  William  Drummond  and  their 
followers  against  the  royal  government  as  then  administered  by  Governor 
Berkeley  in  Virginia. 

Let  us  now  consider  another  of  these  vital  principles  of  human  liberty, 
one  in  the  development  of  which  Americans  boast  themselves  as  being  fore- 
most among  the  nations  of  the  world,  —  that  is,  liberty  of  speech  and  the 
freedom  of  the  press. 

This  principle  was,  perhaps,  first  effectively  contended  for  and  success- 
fully established  in  the  hearts  of  the  American  public  twenty-six  years  be- 
fore James  Otis's  speech  at  Boston,  in  the  trial  of  John  Peter  Zenger,  a  printer 
of  New  York,  and  it  was  then  done  chiefly  by  the  eloquence  and  per- 
sistence of  the  Scottish  Attorney-General  of  Pennsylvania,  a  man  named 
Andrew  Hamilton,  who  was  aided  by  two  Presbyterian  lawyers  of  New  York, 
James  Alexander  and  William  Smith.  Hamilton  was  the  chief  actor  in  this 
affair,  which  has  been  cited  by  Gouverneur  Morris  as  the  beginning  of  Amer- 
ican liberty,  and  no  early  moulder  of  public  opinion  on  the  questions  involved 
in  that  struggle  deserves  a  higher  place  in  the  affections  of  the  American 
people  than  this  Scotch  attorney,  the  first  "  Philadelphia  lawyer  "  to  give 
that  appellation  international  renown.1 

The  occasion  of  his  appearance  was  a  memorable  one,  and  the  incident  is 
not  unlike  that  narrated  by  John  Adams  in  telling  of  the  argument  over  the 
Writs  of  Assistance  in  Massachusetts;  the  scene  in  this  case  being  the  highest 
court  of  the  neighboring  colony  of  New  York,  and  the  leading  actors  the  chief 
justice  and  attorney-general  of  that  province  with  the  aged  and  fearless  lawyer 
from  the  Quaker  colony.     Its  action  took  place  on  August  4,  1735,  and  the 

70 


Liberty  of  Speech  and  Conscience  71 

incident  is  narrated  at  length  in  a  pamphlet  issued  soon  afterwards  by  two  of 
the  defendant's  attorneys.  Zenger's  defence  was  undertaken  by  the  Presby- 
terian Junta,  which  later  became  so  famous  in  the  Revolutionary  history  of 
New  York.8 

Zenger  was  the  publisher  of  the  New  York  Journal,  and  had  printed  in 
its  columns  some  strictures  on  William  Cosby,  the  royal  governor  of  the 
province.  These  criticisms  were  for  the  most  part  true,  and  for  that 
reason  very  unpalatable  to  their  subject.  As  a  warning  to  others,  as  much 
as  for  his  own  offences,  Zenger  was  arrested.  It  was  proposed  to  deal  sum- 
marily with  the  prisoner,  but  public  interest  was  aroused  in  his  case,  and  it 
was  seen  that  if  he  was  convicted  all  hope  of  free  speech  would  for  the  time 
be  gone.  As  the  public  became  interested,  the  authorities  became  de- 
termined and  harsh.  In  pursuance  of  his  rights,  Zenger's  counsel  made  an 
objection  to  the  judges  who  were  to  try  the  case,  and  they  were  promptly 
disbarred,  while  a  lawyer  was  assigned  by  the  Court  to  carry  on  the  defence. 
When  Zenger  was  finally  called  on  to  face  a  jury,  the  authorities  were  confi- 
dent of  making  short  work  of  his  case,  and  of  establishing  a  precedent  which 
would  crush  out  in  the  future  what  they  termed  "  sedition."  Through  the 
instrumentality  of  James  Alexander  and  William  Smith,  who  were  the  chief 
spirits  in  a  society  known  as  the  "  Sons  of  Liberty,"  Andrew  Hamilton  was 
induced  to  appear  as  counsel  for  the  prisoner.  The  fame  of  this  venerable 
attorney,  his  standing  at  the  bar,  the  prominent  offices  he  had  held,  and  his 
position  as  a  member  of  the  Pennsylvania  Assembly,  forbade  his  being 
treated  in  the  summary  fashion  of  Zenger's  earlier  counsel,  so  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  prosecution  could  do  nothing  but  submit.  They  had  hopes 
from  the  jury,  and  knew  that  the  judges  were  with  them. 

The  prosecution  claimed  that  all  the  jury  had  to  determine  was,  whether 
the  publication  which  was  scheduled  as  libellous  had  appeared,  and  that  they 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  libel.  Hamilton  demurred 
from  this,  saying  he  was  prepared  to  admit  the  publication  of  the  strictures, 
and  to  prove  their  truth,  leaving  the  issue  to  the  jury  to  be  whether  truth 
was  a  libel  or  not.  He  was  overruled  by  the  Court  on  the  inferred  ground 
that  anything  reflecting  on  the  King  was  a  libel.  Hamilton  then  denied 
that  the  King's  representative  had  the  same  prerogatives  as  the  sovereign 
himself,  and  claimed  the  right  of  proving  the  truth  of  every  statement  that 
had  been  made  in  Zenger's  paper.  This  the  Court  again  overruled,  and 
Hamilton  then  confined  his  attention  to  the  jury,  and  made  a  glowing 
speech  on  behalf  of  personal  liberty  and  the  right  of  free  criticism,  which 
still  ranks  as  one  of  the  masterpieces  of  American  eloquence.  "  His 
speech,"  says  Dr.  Peter  Ross,  whose  account  has  been  chiefly  followed,3  "  was 
productive  of  effect  far  beyond  the  limits  of  the  court-room  in  which  it  was 
delivered,  or  the  case  in  which  it  was  used.  It  started  a  train  of  thought 
which  fired  men's  minds,  and  did  more  than  anything  else  to  give  expres- 
sion  to   the  popular  desire  for  freedom."      Hamilton  admitted  again  the 


72  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

publication  of  the  words  deemed  libellous,  and  urged  the  jury,  even  though 
the  Court  might  decide  otherwise,  to  consider  the  words  for  themselves, 
and  put  their  own  construction  upon  them.  In  closing,  he  said  :  "  You  see 
I  labor  under  the  weight  of  many  years,  and  am  borne  down  by  many  in- 
firmities of  body  ;  yet  old  and  weak  as  I  am,  I  should  think  it  my  duty,  if 
required,  to  go  to  the  uttermost  part  of  the  land  where  my  service  could 
be  of  any  use  in  assisting  to  quench  the  flame  of  prosecutions  upon  informa- 
tions set  on  foot  by  the  Government  to  deprive  a  people  of  the  right  of 
remonstrating,  and  complaining,  too,  against  the  arbitrary  attempts  of 
men  in  power.  Men  who  oppress  and  injure  the  people  under  their  admin- 
istration provoke  them  to  cry  out  and  complain,  and  then  make  that  very  com- 
plaint the  foundation  for  new  oppressions  and  persecutions.  .  .  .  The 
question  before  the  Court  is  not  of  small  or  private  concern.  It  is  not  the 
cause  of  a  poor  printer,  nor  of  New  York  alone,  which  you  are  now  trying. 
No  !  It  may  in  its  consequences  affect  every  freeman  that  lives  under  the 
British  Government  upon  the  main  of  America.  It  is  the  best  cause.  It  is 
the  cause  of  liberty.  And  I  make  no  doubt  but  your  upright  conduct  this 
day  will  not  only  entitle  you  to  the  love  and  esteem  of  your  fellow-citizens, 
but  every  man  who  prefers  freedom  to  a  life  of  slavery  will  bless  and  honor 
you,  as  men  who  have  baffled  the  attempts  of  tyranny,  and  by  an  impartial 
and  incorrupt  verdict  have  made  a  noble  foundation  for  securing  to  our- 
selves and  our  posterity  and  our  neighbors  that  to  which  nature  and  the  laws 
of  our  country  have  given  us  a  right  —  the  liberty  of  both  exposing  and 
opposing  arbitrary  power,  in  these  parts  of  the  world,  at  least,  by  speaking 
and  writing  truth." 

The  prosecution  replied,  and  the  Court  gave  his  charge  against  the 
prisoner  ;  but  Hamilton's  eloquence  proved  irresistible,  and  the  jury,  after  a 
few  minutes'  deliberation,  brought  in  a  verdict  of  "  Not  Guilty." 

How  this  verdict  was  received  by  the  citizens  of  New  York  who  were 
present  at  Zenger's  trial  is  related  by  an  early  historian  of  that  State  4: 

Shouts  shook  the  hall.  The  judges  threatened  the  leader  of  the  tumult 
with  imprisonment,  when  a  son  of  Admiral  Norris  declared  himself  the 
leader  and  invited  a  repetition  of  the  huzzas.  The  judges  had  no  time  for 
a  reply,  for  the  shouts  were  instantly  repeated,  and  Mr.  Hamilton  was  con- 
ducted from  the  hall  by  the  crowd  to  a  splendid  entertainment.  The  whole 
city  renewed  the  compliment  at  his  departure  the  next  day.  He  entered 
the  barge  under  a  salute  of  cannon,  and  the  corporation  presented  him  with 
the  freedom  of  the  city  in  a  gold  box,  on  which  its  arms  were  engraved,  en- 
circled with  the  words,  "  Demersae  Leges,  Timefacta  Libertas,  Hsec 
Tandem  Emergunt." 

Dr.  John  W.  Francis  states  in  his  description  of  the  city  of  New  York 
(printed  in  the  American  edition  of  Brewster  s  Encyclopedia,  and  on  page 
400  of  Hinton's  History  of  the  United  States),  that  Gouverneur  Morris  told 
him  that  "the  trial  of  Zenger  in  1735  was  tne  germ  of  American  freedom  — 
the  morning  star  of  that  liberty  which  subsequently  revolutionized  America." 


Liberty  of  Speech  and  Conscience  j$ 

The  origin  of  the  so-called  Presbyterian,  or  liberal,  party  in  New  York, 
which  first  committed  and  then  held  that  colony  to  the  American  cause  dur- 
ing the  Revolution,  dates  from  the  time  of  this  trial ;  and  its  importance  in 
forming  and  influencing  public  sentiment  in  the  middle  colonies  is  well  in- 
dicated by  the  view  of  the  trial  generally  taken  by  writers  on  the  opposite 
side  since  that  time. 

In  the  memoir  of  Chief  Justice  James  De  Lancey,  prepared  by  Edward 
F.  De  Lancey,  and  published  in  the  Documentary  History  of  New  York, 
vol.  iv.,  pp.  1037-1059,  the  Zenger  case  is  referred  to  as  follows  : 

About  two  years  afterwards  came  on  before  the  Supreme  Court  the  fa- 
mous trial  of  John  Peter  Zenger  for  a  series  of  libels  on  the  governor  and 
chief  officers  of  the  colony.  He  was  a  printer  by  trade,  in  arrears  to  a  small 
amount  as  collector  of  taxes  in  the  city,  and  the  Assembly  had  refused  to 
allow  him  to  discharge  the  small  debt  by  doing  public  printing  enough  to 
cover  it. 

He  subsequently  published  a  small  paper  entitled  the  New  York  Weekly 
Journal,  at  the  instance  of  the  opposition,  in  which  the  libels  complained  of 
were  published.  His  counsel  were  James  Alexander  and  William  Smith, 
the  elder,  the  supposed  authors  of  the  libels,  two  gentlemen  of  ability  and 
intellect,  both  politically  opposed  to  Chief  Justice  De  Lancey. 

Aware  that  the  law  would  certainly  convict  their  client,  they  attempted 
to  destroy  the  court  by  excepting  to  the  commissions  of  the  judges  as  in- 
valid and  illegal ;  though  they  knew  them  to  be  in  the  usual  form,  and  such 
as  their  predecessors  had  always  held,  and  under  which  they  had  acted 
for  a  number  of  years.  Their  objections,  if  valid,  would  have  destroyed 
the  court  as  well  as  the  commissions,  for  it  existed,  not  by  force  of  any  stat- 
ute, as  they  contended,  but  by  virtue  of  an  ordinance  of  the  governor  and 
council,  dated  May  15,  1699.  A  formal  denial  of  its  existence  deliberately 
made  was  therefore  a  gross  contempt  of  court,  and  the  Chief  Justice  from 
the  bench  warned  the  counsel  of  the  consequences.  But  they  persisted  in 
tendering  the  exceptions,  upon  which  the  court  made  an  order,  striking  their 
names  from  its  rolls  and  excluding  them  from  further  practice.  Zenger,  be- 
ing unable  to  procure  other  counsel,  the  court  assigned  him  Mr.  Joseph 
Murray,  with  whom  the  silenced  lawyers  associated  Mr.  Hamilton,  of  Phila- 
delphia, who  made  so  artful  an  address  to  the  jury  at  the  trial  a  few  days 
afterwards  that,  in  the  words  of  one  of  their  own  [Tory]  friends  (Smith, 
History  of  New  York,  ii.,  22),  "when  he  left  his  client  in  those  hands,  such 
was  the  fraudful  dexterity  of  the  orator,  and  the  severity  of  his  invectives 
upon  the  governor  and  his  adherents,  that  the  jury,  missing  the  true  issue 
before  them,  they,  as  if  triers  of  their  rulers,  rather  than  of  Zenger,  pro- 
nounced the  criminal  innocent  because  they  believed  them  to  be  guilty." 

Chief  Justice  De  Lancey's  course  on  this  occasion  has  been  much  misun- 
derstood, owing  to  the  fact  that  the  only  report  of  the  trial  was  that  pub- 
lished by  Zenger  himself,  written  by  the  silenced  lawyers,  and  printed,  not 
in  New  York,  but  in  Boston,  in  1738,  three  years  after  the  trial,  which  of 
course  represents  him  in  the  worst  possible  light.  Taking  the  facts  of  the 
case,  however,  as  given  even  there,  it  would  be  difficult  to  point  out  any 
other  course  which  the  court  could  have  taken  consistently  with  its  own  dig- 
nity and  self-respect. 

At  this  period,  and  from  these  controversies  and  others  allied  to  them, 
arose  the  two  great  parties  which  ever  afterwards  divided  the  people  of  the 


74  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

province  :  the  one  maintaining  principles  moderate  and  conservative  ;  the 
other,  those  of  a  more  radical  tendency. 

Both  professed  the  strongest  attachment  and  loyalty  to  the  British  con- 
stitution, and  vied  with  each  other  in  claiming  and  upholding  all  the  rights 
of  Englishmen. 

In  New  York,  as  in  some  of  the  other  colonies,  the  religious  element  en- 
tered largely  into  politics.  In  point  of  wealth  and  influence  the  Episco- 
palians were  the  leading  denomination,  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  came 
next,  and  the  Presbyterians  last ;  while  in  point  of  numbers  their  positions 
were  exactly  reversed,  the  Presbyterians  outnumbering  the  Dutch,  and  the 
Dutch  the  Episcopalians.  The  last,  with  most  of  the  Dutch,  chiefly  be- 
longed to  the  conservative  party  ;  while  the  remainder  of  the  Dutch  and  the 
Presbyterians  almost  to  a  man  were  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  opposition. 

Another  and  very  striking  peculiarity  in  the  composition  of  the  colonial 
parties  was  the  remarkable  preponderance  of  the  wealth  and  social  position 
of  the  province  on  the  side  of  the  conservatives  [the  Loyalist  party  of  1776]. 
In  their  ranks  were  found  the  Philipses,  Van  Cortlandts,  De  Lanceys, 
Bayards,  Crugers,  Wattses,  Waltons,  Van  Rensselaers,  Beekmans,  Bleeckers, 
Barclays,  Joneses  of  Long  Island,  Jays,  Verplancks,  Harrisons,  and  other 
substantial  families  ;  while  in  those  of  the  opposition  the  Livingstons, 
Morrises,  Alexanders,  and  perhaps  the  Smiths  and  one  or  two  more  were 
probably  all  that  belonged  to  the  same  class. 

Here,  then,  we  find  the  contest  for  freedom  of  public  utterance  and  the 
liberty  of  the  press  waged  and  won  in  America  at  least  forty  years  before 
Lexington,  and  at  a  time  when  James  Otis  and  Samuel  Adams  themselves 
were  not  long  out  of  their  swaddling  clothes.  Yet,  concerning  these  things, 
the  pages  of  so-called  American  histories,  of  the  New  England  school,  in 
nine  cases  out  of  ten  are  silent. 

Finally,  let  us  revert  to  a  much  earlier  period  and  consider  for  a  moment 
the  founding  in  America  of  what,  with  civil  liberty,  is  the  twin  support  of 
the  structure  of  all  just  and  lasting  governments,  namely,  the  principle  of 
religious  freedom.6 

In  Penn's  colony  liberty  of  worship  was  permitted  from  the  beginning  of 
his  government.  In  Maryland  and  in  one  or  two  others  of  the  southern  col- 
onies, for  a  short  time  at  the  beginning  there  was  the  same  beneficent  pro- 
vision made  by  their  laws  or  charters,  but  statutory  enactment  soon  destroyed 
it.  Outside  of  Pennsylvania  and  Rhode  Island,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  English  Church  had  been  established  by  law  in  most 
of  the  middle  and  southern  governments,  and  the  Congregational  Church  in 
those  of  New  England.  The  Revolution  of  1689  had  brought  to  Britain, 
among  other  blessings,  that  of  the  Toleration  Act,  but  its  provisions  had 
not  yet  been  fully  or  definitely  extended  to  the  American  colonies.  Rev. 
Francis  Makemie,  the  Scotch-Irish  founder  of  American  Presbyterianism, 
had  come  from  County  Donegal,  Ireland,  to  the  island  of  Barbadoes  about 
1683,  and  thence  proceeded  to  the  eastern  shore  of  Maryland.  There  and 
along  the  Elizabeth  River  in  Virginia  he  began  to  labor  in  establishing  mis- 
sionary stations  among  the  Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish  families  who  had  settled 


Liberty  of  Speech  and  Conscience  75 

in  those  parts.  In  the  course  of  twenty  years  he  had  helped  to  build  up 
two  or  three  church  organizations  in  that  territory,  and  in  1706  their  minis- 
ters united  with  those  of  other  churches  of  Maryland,  Delaware,  and  Penn- 
sylvania in  forming  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia.  After  this  organization 
had  been  made,  Makemie  undertook  a  journey  to  Boston.  While  on  the  way 
he  stopped  and  preached  in  New  York,  and  there  the  opportunity  came  to 
him  for  making  that  first  fight  against  the  encroachments  of  the  English 
Church  establishment  in  America,  which  resulted  in  restricting  and  mini- 
mizing its  power  forever  afterwards. 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  October  27, 
1706,  Francis  Makemie  took  with  him  John  Hampton  and  set  out  on  his  jour- 
ney, probably  to  consult  with  the  Boston  ministers.  They  stopped  at  New 
York  on  their  way.  They  were  invited  by  the  Puritans  of  the  city  to  preach 
for  them.  The  Consistory  of  the  Dutch  Church,  in  accordance  with  their 
generous  custom,  offered  their  church  edifice  for  the  purpose.  But  their 
kindness  was  frustrated  by  the  refusal  of  Governor  Cornbury  to  permit  it. 
Makemie,  therefore,  preached,  January  20,  1706-7,  in  the  private  house  of 
William  Jackson,  in  Pearl  Street.6  The  same  day,  John  Hampton  preached 
at  Newtown,  Long  Island.  On  the  following  Tuesday,  Makemie  and 
Hampton  went  to  Newtown  intending  to  preach  the  next  day,  according  to 
appointment ;  but  they  were  there  arrested  on  a  warrant  from  Governor 
Cornbury,  on  the  ground  that  they  had  preached  without  his  permission. 
They  were  detained  until  March  1st,  when  they  were  brought  before  the 
Supreme  Court  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

The  charge  against  Hampton  was  not  pressed,  but  Makemie  was  released 
on  bail  to  appear  for  trial  June  3d.  He  immediately  returned  to  Philadel- 
phia with  Hampton  for  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  March 
22,  1707.     From  thence  he  writes  to  Benjamin  Colman,  of  Boston  : 

Since  our  imprisonment  we  have  commenced  a  correspondence  with  our 
rev.  breth.  of  the  ministry  at  Boston,  which  we  hope  according  to  our  in- 
tention has  been  communicated  to  you  all,  whose  sympathizing  concurrence 
I  cannot  doubt  of,  in  an  expensive  struggle,  for  asserting  our  liberty  against 
the  powerful  invasion  of  Lord  Cornbury,  which  is  not  yet  over.  I  need  not 
tell  you  of  a  picked  jury,  and  the  penal  laws,  are  invading  our  American 
sanctuary  without  the  least  regard  to  the  toleration,  which  should  justly 
alarm  us  all. 

The  New  England  ministers  immediately  wrote  to  Sir  Henry  Ashurst, 
Sir  Edmund  Harrison,  and  other  London  agents,  April  1,  1707  : 

Except  speedy  relief  be  obtained,  the  issue  will  be,  not  only  a  vast  op- 
pression on  a  very  worthy  servant  of  God,  but  also  a  confusion  upon  the 
whole  body  of  Dissenters  in  these  colonies,  where  they  are  languishing  under 
my  Lord  Cornbury's  arbitrary  and  unaccountable  government.  We  do 
therefore  earnestly  solicit  you,  that  you  would  humbly  petition  the  Queen's 
Majesty  on  this  occasion,  and  represent  the  sufferings  of  the  Dissenters  in 
those  parts  of  America  which  are  carried  on  in  so  direct  violation  of  her 


j6  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Majesty's  commands,  of  the  laws  of  the  nation,  and  the  common  rights  of 
Englishmen.  (Hutchinson,  History  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay, 
2d  edition,  London,  1768,  ii.,  p.  125.) 

Makemie  returned  to  New  York  and  sustained  his  trial.  He  was  de- 
fended by  three  of  the  ablest  lawyers  in  the  province — James  Reigniere, 
David  Jameson,  and  William  Nicholl,  made  an  elaborate  and  convincing 
argument  in  defence  of  his  own  religious  rights,  and  was  acquitted  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  complied  with  the  Toleration  Act  and  had  acted 
within  his  rights  as  a  Presbyterian  minister.  He  produced  his  license  to 
preach  under  the  Toleration  Act  in  Barbadoes,  and  this  was  recognized  as 
valid  throughout  the  Queen's  dominions.  The  claim  of  Cornbury,  that  it 
was  necessary  that  he  should  have  a  special  license  from  the  governor  of 
New  York,  was  simply  ridiculous.  But,  notwithstanding  his  acquittal, 
Makemie  was  obliged  to  pay  the  costs  of  the  prosecution  as  well  as  the 
defence,  amounting  to  the  large  sum  of  £83  7s.  6d.  "  This  trial,"  says 
Professor  Briggs,  "  followed  by  the  bitter  pursuit  of  the  acquitted  man  on 
the  part  of  the  wrathful  governor,  was  the  culmination  of  a  series  of  tyran- 
nical acts  which  aroused  the  entire  Puritan  body  of  the  colonies  and  of 
Great  Britain  to  action.  The  arbitrary  acts  of  Governor  Cornbury  were 
indefensible.  He  had  exceeded  his  prerogative,  transgressed  the  provisions 
of  the  Toleration  Act,  and  violated  the  liberties  of  the  Dissenters,  and  in- 
deed twisted  and  perverted  the  royal  instructions  to  himself.  He  even 
intermeddled  with  the  missionaries  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of 
the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  and  gained  the  hostility  of  all  the  better 
elements  in  the  Church  of  England."  The  New  York  Assembly,  in  April, 
1707,  remonstrated  against  Cornbury's  actions,  charged  him  with  bribery, 
with  encroachment  on  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  finally  expressed  their 
determination  to  redress  the  miseries  of  their  country.  He  was  recalled, 
and  in  1709  Lord  Lovelace  took  his  place.7 

An  account  of  Makemie's  trial  was  first  printed  in  1707,  and  a  second 
publication  was  made  in  1755.  The  former  account  was  reprinted  in 
Force's  Tracts  in  1846  (vol.  iv.),  and  the  latter  in  Hill's  American  Presby- 
terianism  (1839).     For  Makemie's  argument,  see  Appendix  D. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  V. 

1  Of  this  event,  Gouverneur  Morris  said  :  "  Instead  of  dating  American  liberty  from  the 
Stamp  Act,  I  trace  it  to  the  persecution  of  Peter  Zenger,  because  that  event  revealed  the 
philosophy  of  freedom  both  of  thought  and  speech  as  an  inborn  human  right,  so  nobly  set 
forth  in  Milton's  Treatise  on  Unlicensed  Printing." — Lossing,  The  Empire  State,  Hart- 
ford, 1888,  p.  147.     For  Hamilton's  argument,  see  Appendix  C. 

2  The  account  of  Zenger's  trial  was  first  printed  in  Boston  in  1738,  and  passed  through 
several  editions,  two  of  which  appeared  in  London  in  1738,  and  another  in  Lancaster,  Pa., 
in  1756.     See  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  vol.  iv.,  p.  104. 

3  The  Scot  in  America,  pp.  302-307. 


Liberty  of  Speech  and  Conscience  yy 

4  William  Dunlap,  History  of  New  Netherlands,  Province  of  New  York,  and  State  of 
New  York,  vol.  i.,  pp.  298-310. 

5  ' '  Where  is  the  man  to  be  found  at  this  day  .  .  .  who  will  believe  that  the  apprehen- 
sion of  Episcopacy  contributed  fifty  years  ago,  as  much  as  any  other  cause,  to  arouse  the  at- 
tention not  only  of  the  inquiring  mind,  but  of  the  common  people,  and  urge  them  to  close 
thinking  on  the  constitutional  authority  of  Parliament  over  the  colonies  ?  This,  neverthe- 
less, was  a  fact  certain  as  any  in  the  history  of  North  America.     .     . 

"  The  opinion,  the  principles,  the  spirit,  the  temper,  the  views,  designs,  intrigues,  and  ar- 
bitrary exertions  of  power  displayed  by  the  Church  of  England  at  that  time  towards  the 
Dissenters,  as  they  were  contemptuously  called,  though  in  reality  the  churchmen  were  the 
real  dissenters,  ought  to  be  stated  at  full  length.     .     .     . 

"  In  Virginia,  the  Church  of  England  was  established  by  law  in  exclusion  and  without 
toleration." — John  Adams,   Works,  vol.  x.,  pp.  185,  186. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  Revolution,  public  feeling  in  the  eastern  colonies  was  ex- 
cited by  the  fears  of  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  British  ecclesiastics.  Elbridge  Gerry 
and  Samuel  Adams,  for  political  effect,  led  off  with  predictions  as  groundless  as  they  were 
vain.  Plain  facts  demonstrated  that,  notwithstanding  these  misrepresentations,  Episcopa- 
lians were  the  leading  architects  of  the  great  work  of  American  Independence.  Franklin, 
Laurens,  the  Pinckneys,  Wythe,  Marshall,  Pendleton,  the  Randolphs,  Hamilton,  Washing- 
ton, Jefferson,  Patrick  Henry,  Monroe,  Rutledge,  the  Lees,  Jay, Williams,  Gen.  Wayne,  Robt. 
R.  Livingston,  Gouverneur,  Lewis,  and  Robert  Morris,  Duer,  Duane,  Lord  Stirling,  Wil- 
liam Samuel  Johnson,  Chase,  Madison,  and  a  host  of  others,  distinguished  patriots  of  the 
Revolution,  were  of  the  Episcopal  Church. — Opdike,  History  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
Providence,  R,  I.,  pp.  241,  242. 

6  This  sermon  was  printed  at  Boston  in  1707.  A  reprint  of  the  Boston  edition  may  be 
found  in  the  Collections  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society  for  the  Year  1S70,  pp.  409-453. 

1  American  Presbyterianism,  pp.  152-155. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  AMERICAN   PEOPLE  NOT  RACIALLY  IDENTICAL   WITH 
THOSE  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 

THE  second  reason  for  the  undue  prominence  of  New  England  in  the 
popular  conception  of  American  history,  to  which  reference  was  made 
in  the  introductory  chapter,  is  found  in  the  absence,  for  a  long  time,  of  any 
systematic  or  comprehensive  treatment  by  the  writers  of  the  middle  and 
southern  colonies  of  the  history  of  their  own  districts.1  A  start  was  made  in 
this  direction,  it  is  true,  by  Dr.  David  Ramsay  in  his  History  of  South  Carolina 
(1789),  followed,  with  less  degrees  of  excellence,  by  Hugh  Williamson's 
History  of  North  Carolina,  Gordon's  Histories  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jer- 
sey, and  Day's,  Howe's,  and  Barber's  Historical  Collections  of  Pennsylvania, 
Virginia,  and  New  Jersey  ;  but  these  books  were  all  written  at  a  date  when 
there  was  little  material  collected  or  available,  and  before  the  inception  of 
modern  methods  of  historic  inquiry  and  analysis  ;  and  they  are  only  good 
examples  of  what  can  be  done  by  conscientious  workmen  without 
proper  tools,  or  suitable  material  at  hand  on  which  to  work.  Bancroft  was 
the  first  American  historian  to  do  even  partial  justice  to  the  subject  from  a 
national  standpoint.  Foote's  Sketches  of  Virginia  and  of  North  Carolina  are 
among  the  most  valuable  contributions  to  the  early  history  of  these  States 
that  we  have,  but  these  works  were  written  nearly  fifty  years  ago.  Bishop 
Meade's  Churches  and  Families  of  Virginia  also  contains  a  vast  amount  of 
local  and  family  history  in  connection  with  that  of  the  Episcopal  churches. 

In  New  England,  from  the  time  of  its  first  settlement,  more  or  less  ample 
and  detailed  records  of  the  political  and  social  history  of  nearly  every 
community,  however  small,  have  been  preserved  in  written  form,  as  well  as 
much  of  personal  history.  The  publication  of  these  records,  which  has 
been  carried  on  for  many  years  by  public  and  private  agencies,  and  their 
use  as  the  bases  for  many  of  our  popular  histories,  has  served  to  dissem- 
inate a  vastly  greater  amount  of  information  about  the  people  and  events  with 
which  these  records  are  concerned  than  those  of  any  other  part  of  America. 

Literary  genius,  likewise,  has  aided  materially  in  forming  our  popular 
ideals  of  characters  and  events  in  connection  with  certain  phases  of  Ameri- 
can history,  particularly  with  those  of  New  England.  Indeed,  certain  liter- 
ary productions  may  have  been  the  sole  sources  of  information  regarding 
occurrences  which  are  now  reputed  historic.  This  has  been  true  in  all 
ages.  The  Arabian  Nights,  in  the  incidental  evidence  which  it  affords,  as 
well  as  by  reason  of  its  own  intrinsic  merit,  must  always  be  our  chief 
authority  for  the  high  degree  of  civilization  attained  by  the  early  Moham- 
medans ;  just  as  the  military  prowess  of   ancient  Greece  has  from  time 

78 


The  American  People  79 

immemorial  been  best  appreciated  through  the  glowing  imageries  of  the 
minstrel  poet,  and  the  glory  of  English  history  been  best  expressed  in  the 
imaginary  conceptions  of  an  obscure  playwright.  Shakspeare  has  given  us 
an  idea  of  the  character  of  Richard  III.  and  his  predecessors  and  followers, 
as  well  as  of  that  of  Macbeth,  which  a  more  thorough  investigation  —  while 
showing  it  to  be  in  a  large  measure  false  —  can  never  completely  correct. 
In  like  manner,  Walter  Scott  has  typified  in  the  personality  of  the  first 
Richard  all  the  romantic  tendencies  of  the  age  of  the  Crusaders,  with  the 
result  that  his  highly  idealized  portrait  will  ever  be  preferred  to  the  less 
flattering  though  more  honest  delineation  of  history.  So  it  is  that  the  best- 
known  pictures  of  early  American  life  and  character  presented  in  our  roman- 
tic literature,  being  taken  for  the  most  part  through  New  England  lenses, 
can  be  considered,  from  an  historical  standpoint,  only  with  due  allowance 
for  that  fact.  Hawthorne  has  immortalized  the  Puritan,  just  as  Cooper  has 
created  the  American  Indian  of  the  popular  mind  ;  yet,  however  true  the 
former's  characterization  of  the  early  New  Englander  may  be,  it  has  but  little 
more  value,  as  a  type  of  the  true  American  eponym,  than  that  of  the  latter. 

These  various  aids  and  influences,  either  of  a  literary  or  historic  nature, 
have  not  until  quite  recently  been  available  for  the  study  of  American  his- 
tory in  its  broader  sense  ;  and  we  are  only  just  beginning  to  get  the  benefit  of 
their  assistance  in  the  examination  of  other  than  the  New  England  portion 
of  it.  But  this  examination  can  never  be  carried  on  with  entire  satisfac- 
tion, until  the  complete  publication  of  the  early  records  of  the  general 
government.  An  attempt  was  made  to  this  end  some  fifty  or  sixty  years  ago, 
which  began  quite  favorably,  and  resulted  in  the  publication  of  Force's 
series  of  Archives  pertaining  to  affairs  at  the  beginning  of  the  Revolutionary 
struggle,  and  the  projection  of  other  series.  But  that  work  was  dropped  long 
before  completion,  and  beyond  nine  volumes  of  Archives  of  the  years  1775 
and  1776,  and  the  several  volumes  of  State  Papers  of  later  date,  very  little 
other  data  has  been  printed.  There  is  a  vast  amount  of  material  relating 
to  the  colonial  period  and  to  the  progress  of  the  war  and  the  subsequent 
formation  of  our  system  of  government  which  still  remains  to  be  published. 

It  is,  however,  to  the  recent  enlightened  policy  of  many  of  the  State  gov- 
ernments of  the  original  colonies  that  we  are  indebted  for  the  inauguration 
of  a  movement  looking  to  the  conservation  of  the  materials  for  their  early 
history  in  a  form  that  makes  them  at  once  both  accessible  and  capable  of 
preservation.  This  consists  in  the  publication  of  various  volumes  of  State 
archives,  Revolutionary  rosters,  and  documentary  and  other  records,  of  which 
many  series  have  already  been  issued  by  the  States  of  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  North  Carolina,  and  others 
are  in  course  of  preparation.  Of  these,  by  far  the  most  useful  and  compre- 
hensive in  their  preparation  are  the  fifty  volumes  of  Archives  brought  out 
by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  under  the  capable  editorship  of  Dr.  William  H. 
Egle,  for  many  years  the  State  librarian. 


80  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

In  New  York,  up  to  1887,  there  had  been  published  a  Documentary  His- 
tory (4  vols.,  1850)  and  seventeen  volumes  (1856-1887)  of  documents  re- 
lating to  the  colonial  history,  including  a  roster  of  Revolutionary  soldiers. 
New  Jersey  published  twenty  volumes  of  Archives  between  1872  and  1893, 
and  also  a  Revolutionary  roster. 

Besides  these  State  publications,  the  various  State  historical  societies  of 
the  older  colonies  have  also  awakened  in  late  years  to  the  fact  that,  in  order 
to  justify  their  right  to  existence,  it  will  be  necessary  for  them  to  do  some- 
thing of  a  less  trivial  nature  than  merely  to  publish  reports  of  their  business 
meetings  and  lengthy  obituaries  of  their  deceased  members.  In  conse- 
quence we  are  beginning  to  benefit  by  their  labors.  The  New  York  society 
gives  the  best  promise  of  future  accomplishments,  if  the  industry  of  its 
members  is  at  all  equal  to  the  opportunities  afforded  in  the  wealth  of 
documentary  material  now  undergoing  classification  by  the  State  officials. 

The  Historical  Society  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  is  unfortunate  in  being 
located  away  from  the  seat  of  the  State  government.  Its  headquarters  are 
in  Philadelphia,  where  live  most  of  its  members,  and  consequently  its  work 
is  directed  more  along  the  line  of  local  investigation  than  concerned  with 
the  history  of  the  State  at  large.  It  might  more  appropriately  be  called  the 
Historical  Society  of  Philadelphia.  In  that  field  its  labors  are  invaluable. 
Its  chief  publication  is  the  Pennsylvania  Magazine,  a  large  quarterly,  estab- 
lished in  1877,  and  a  model  periodical  of  the  class.  In  the  Society's  early 
days  a  number  of  volumes  relating  to  the  history  of  the  State  were  also  issued, 
but  few  in  recent  years.  The  inattention  on  the  part  of  this  Society  to  that 
portion  of  the  State  outside  of  Philadelphia,  however,  is  more  than  made  up 
by  the  private  enterprise  of  Dr.  Egle,  already  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  publication  of  the  State  Archives.  During  the  past  twenty  years  this  gen- 
tleman, in  addition  to  his  work  on  the  State  Archives,  published  on  his  own 
behalf  more  than  a  dozen  volumes  of  historical  collections  relating  to  inte- 
rior Pennsylvania.  The  debt  owed  to  him  by  all  students  of  that  part  of 
early  American  history  is  one  that  will  steadily  increase  with  the  passing 
years.  The  chief  work  of  the  Maryland  society  up  to  this  date  has  been 
the  preparation  of  sixteen  volumes  of  Maryland  Archives  (1883-1897),  which 
were  printed  by  the  State,  and  nine  or  ten  volumes  of  Collections.  The 
Historical  Society  of  Richmond  has  also  contributed  nearly  a  dozen  volumes 
(1882-1891)  of  Collections  relating  to  Virginia.  There  is  a  rich  field  in  that 
State  for  the  future  historian  of  America,  but  up  to  the  present  time  a 
comparative  dearth  of  published  material.  Some  early  history  of  North 
Carolina,  including  a  roster  of  Revolutionary  soldiers,  has  been  given  in  the 
Colonial  Records  of  that  State  (18  vols.,  1886-1900)  ;  but  South  Carolina 
has  produced  only  a  few  small  volumes  of  Collections,  issued  by  its  Histori- 
cal Society  some  forty  years  ago  (1857-59)  ;  and  Georgia  still  less. 

In  addition  to  the  various  general  historical  societies  in  these  States,  there 
are  also  many  other  organizations  devoted  to  the  collection  of  historical 


The  American  People  81 

matter  relating  to  special  classes  of  the  population.  Of  these  may  be  men- 
tioned the  Holland  Society  of  New  York,  the  Huguenot  Society,  and  the 
Scotch-Irish  Society  of  America.  The  one  last  named  held  an  annual  con- 
gress each  year  from  1889  to  1897,  and  published  nine  volumes  of  its  Collec- 
tions. Their  contents  are  chiefly  made  up  from  the  addresses  delivered  at 
the  annual  meetings;  hence  there  is  considerable  difference  in  their  degrees 
of  merit. 

None  of  these  works  compare  in  thoroughness  or  scope  with  the 
publications  of  the  New  England  State  governments  and  of  their  various 
historical  and  antiquarian  societies.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Middle  States 
equal  to  the  Plymouth  or  Suffolk  Records  of  Massachusetts,  for  instance  ; 
or  the  Provincial,  State,  or  Town  Papers  of  New  Hampshire  ;  or  the  New 
England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register. 

As  another  result  of  the  fecundity  and  one-sidedness  of  the  New  England  \/ 
writers  before  1870,  it  has  been  long  customary  to  ascribe  to  the  English 
element  in  the  American  population  the  credit  not  only  for  all  the  early 
achievements  of  the  nation  in  war  and  peace,3  but  also  for  having  furnished 
practically  all  the  colonists  who  settled  in  the  country  before  the  Revolu- 
tion.3 As  a  matter  of  fact,  nothing  could  be  more  erroneous.  The  population 
of  the  New  England  States  at  the  date  of  the  first  general  census  (1790)  was 
1,009,408,  and  the  total  white  population  of  the  country,  3,172,006.  Bancroft 
estimated  the  white  population  of  the  colonies  in  1775  to  have  been  about 
2,100,000;  and  as  it  is  probable  that  the  New  England  population  did  not 
increase  so  rapidly  between  1775  and  1790  as  that  of  the  other  States,  we 
may  safely  estimate  it  at  one-third  of  the  total  population  in  1775. 

Of  the  total  white  population  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  there  is 
abundant  evidence  to  show  that  at  least  one-third  was  not  of  English  descent 
or  sympathies  at  all,  but  consisted  of  a  variety  of  nationalities,  including  the 
Germans,  French,  Hollanders,  Swedes,  and  others.  The  Germans  and  Swiss 
comprised  nearly  a  third  of  the  population  of  Pennsylvania  in  1776,4  and  they 
likewise  had  formed  many  communities  in  western  Maryland  and  northern 
Virginia,  as  well  as  in  the  lower  country  of  South  Carolina.  The  Swedes 
made  the  first  settlements  in  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware;  but  these  were 
afterwards  overrun  by  the  Dutch,  who  acquired  most  of  the  territory  along 
the  Delaware  River,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Hudson  and  Mohawk  valleys  in 
New  York,  and  a  considerable  portion  of  New  Jersey.  The  Welsh  had  large 
grants  of  land  and  numerous  settlements  in  Delaware  and  southeastern 
Pennsylvania.  The  French,  usually  Huguenot  refugees  from  the  German 
Palatine,  or  from  Holland  or  Ireland,  were  likewise  among  the  early  colo- 
nizers of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  same  people  formed  a  large  part  of  the  first 
European  population  of  the  Carolinas.  But  the  settlements  of  all  these  dif- 
ferent nationalities  taken  together  did  not  begin  to  equal  in  number  or 
importance  those  of  another  class  of  people  with  which  we  now  have  to  deal 
—  a  class  that  was  as  distinctly  non-English  as  many  of  those  just  named  ; 

6 


2>2  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

and  one  that  had  infinitely  greater  reason  than  any  of  the  others  for  resenting 
the  course  of  injustice  and  oppression  so  long  pursued  in  the  administration 
of  the  British  Government.5 

These  were  the  Scots  of  North  Britain  and  North  Ireland,  a  composite 
race,  even  at  that  time  having  in  the  organic  make-up  of  each  individual  a 
combination  of  the  several  racial  elements  which  were  almost,  identical  with 
those  now  forming  the  present  collective  population  of  America,  and  from 
which  the  American  of  the  future  is  gradually  being  evolved.  Theirs  was  the 
one  representative  and  typical  race  in  America  with  which  all  others  are  com- 
ing more  and  more  to  conform.  That  is  to  say,  these  Attacot-Goidelic-Cymro- 
Anglo-Norse-Danish  Scots  of  colonial  times,  these  Celto-Teutonic  emigrants 
to  America  of  the  eighteenth  century,  combined  in  their  individual  bodies 
the  physical  attributes  of  the  Angle,  the  Gael,  the  Norse,  and  the  Brython. 
In  their  veins  was  already  blended  the  blood  of  the  various  peoples  which  in 
the  past  hundred  years  have  been  pouring  millions  of  individuals  into  the 
race  alembic  called  America  ;  and  to  a  far  greater  extent  than  any  of  their 
neighbors  were  these  Scottish  emigrants  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  true 
prototypes  of  the  typical  American  of  the  twentieth.8 

Their  settlements  in  America  began  in  the  seventeenth  century  but  were 
made  chiefly  in  the  eighteenth.  At  the  time  of  the  Revolution  these 
people  comprised  fully  forty  per  cent,  of  the  patriotic  population  of  the 
country  south  of  New  England. 

The  Continental  Congress  of  1776  made  an  estimate  of  the  population  of 
the  thirteen  original  colonies  as  a  basis  from  which  to  apportion  the  expense 
of  the  war.7  The  figures  of  this  conjectural  census  of  Congress  are  as 
follows  : 

New  Hampshire 102,000 

Massachusetts  (including  Maine) 352,000 

Rhode  Island 58,000 

Connecticut 202,000 

New  York  (including  Vermont) 238,000 

New  Jersey 138,000 

Pennsylvania 341,000 

Delaware 37,000 

Maryland 174,000 

Virginia  (including  Kentucky) 300,000 

North  Carolina  (including  Tennessee) 181,000 

South  Carolina 93,000 

Georgia 27,000 

Total  white  population 2,243,000 

Slave  population 500,000 

2,743,000s 

This  estimate  is  now  generally  conceded  to  have  been  too  large,  since  the 

census  of  1790  showed  a  total  white  population  of  only  3,172,006  ;  and  as 

the  average  normal  rate  of  increase  of  population  in  America  ever  since  we 

have  had  any  data  to  enable  us  to  strike  an  average  has  been  about  three 


The  American  People  83 

per  cent,  a  year,  the  population  doubling  about  every  twenty-three  years,  it 
would  appear  that  the  actual  population  of  the  colonies  in  1776  was  about 
ten  per  cent,  less  than  the  congressional  estimate.  For  the  purpose  of 
lessening  its  proportion  of  the  general  tax,  New  Hampshire  caused  a  State 
census  to  be  taken  in  1782,  and  as  a  result  of  that  census  reported  its  popu- 
lation at  82,000,  but  this  figure  was  in  all  probability  as  far  below  the  true 
number  as  that  of  the  congressional  estimate  was  above  it.  Pennsylvania 
had  not  quite  40,000  taxables  in  1770.  Counting  six  persons  to  one  taxpayer, 
the  population  then  would  have  been  about  240,000,  and,  with  an  annual 
increase  of  three  per  cent.,  about  280,000  in  1776.  There  was,  however,  a 
very  large  immigration  of  Ulster  Scots  into  this  province  in  1773  and  it  is 
probable  the  report  made  by  Governor  Penn  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  January 
30,  1 775,"  fixing  the  white  population  at  300,000,  was  not  far  from  the  truth. 
Bancroft,  as  stated  before,  estimated  the  total  white  population  of  the  colonies 
in  1775  to  have  been  2, 100,000. 10  It  would  seem  that  we  can  safely  follow 
this  estimate,  and  assign  700,000,  or  one-third,  to  the  territory  east  of  the 
Hudson.11  Of  the  1,400,000  west  of  the  Hudson  and  south  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence, the  following  is  probably  as  close  and  accurate  an  estimate  as  can  be 
made  from  the  data  now  available,  the  estimated  1,400,000  of  inhabitants 
being  apportioned  among  the  nine  States  in  accordance  with  their  relative 
populations  in  1790  : 

New  York  (excluding  Vermont) 202,000 

New  Jersey 109,000 

Pennsylvania 273,000 

Delaware 30,000 

Maryland 134,000 

Virginia  (including  Kentucky) 325,000 

North  Carolina  (including  Tennessee) 206,000 

South  Carolina 90,000 

Georgia 34,ooo 

Total 1,403,000 

Now,  we  may  safely  estimate  the  proportion  of  inhabitants  of  Scottish 
blood  or  descent  to  have  been  one-eighth  of  the  whole  white  population  in 
New  York  ;  one-fifth  to  one-fourth  in  the  States  of  New  Jersey,  Maryland, 
and  Virginia  ;  more  than  one-third  in  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  North  Caro- 
lina, and  Georgia  ;  and  one-half  in  South  Carolina.19 

Using  the  census  of  1790  as  a  basis  on  which  to  apportion  the  population 
in  1775,  we  find  from  the  foregoing  estimates  that  the  number  of  inhabitants 
of  Scottish  ancestry  at  that  time  in  the  nine  colonies  south  of  New  England 
(there  were  probably  25,000  in  New  England)  was  close  to  385,000,  as 
follows : 

New  York 25,000 

New  Jersey 25,000 

Pennsylvania ico,ooo 


84  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Delaware 10,000 

Maryland 30,000 

Virginia 75,ooo 

North  Carolina 65,000 

South  Carolina 45,°oo 

Georgia 10,000 

Total 385,000 

Of  the  1,400,000  total  white  population  of  these  States  it  is  probable  that 
nearly  one-third  were  in  open  or  secret  sympathy  with  the  Crown  during  the 
Revolution,  and  did  not  voluntarily  contribute  either  men  or  means  to  the 
American  cause.  Many  of  these  were  engaged  in  active  hostilities  against 
the  patriotic  party,  particularly  in  New  York  and  North  and  South  Carolina, 
in  the  latter  of  which  States  at  times  more  than  half  the  population  is  said  to 
have  been  on  the  English  side.  John  Adams  estimated  that  about  one-third 
of  the  Americans  were  Loyalists  in  the  first  years  of  the  struggle,  though  he 
sometimes  reduced  this  figure  considerably.13  It  would  perhaps  be  not  an 
exaggeration  to  say  that  in  Maryland  and  Virginia  in  1776  one-sixth  of  the 
white  population  was  opposed  to  the  war  and  to  independence,  and  was  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  Loyalist ;  in  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  and  Delaware, 
one-third  ;  and  in  New  York,  Georgia,  and  the  Carolinas,  two-fifths.14  If 
these  figures  may  be  taken  as  fairly  accurate  in  the  aggregate,  they  would 
reduce  the  patriotic  population  to  somewhat  below  a  million,  outside  of  New 
England;  and  of  that  number  it  is  altogether  likely  that  less  than  half  were 
of  English  extraction. 

Concerning  the  patriotism  of  the  Scotch-Irish,  the  general  testimony  of 
contemporary  and  later  writers  is  to  the  effect  that  there  were  no  Tories 
among  them,  and  that  they  were  found  uniformly  arrayed  against  the  British  ; 
but  it  is  probable  this  statement  can  be  taken  as  applicable  only  in  a  general 
way  and  one  to  which  many  individual  exceptions  may  be  noted.  One  of 
these  exceptions  was  that  of  the  notorious  renegade,  Simon  Girty 
and  his  brothers,  who  were  probably  Scotch-Irish  on  their  mother's  side. 
The  Scotch  (Jacobite)  Highlanders  of  North  Carolina  principally  settled 
along  the  Cape  Fear  River,  were  nearly  all  active  Tory  partisans,16  as  were 
also  the  Scotch  Catholics  of  New  York.  Many  Scottish  names  appear  in 
Sabine's  list  of  Loyalists,  principally  from  these  two  States  ;  and  some  also 
from  Pennsylvania,  among  which  may  be  mentioned  that  of  Galloway.18 

Among  the  British  and  Tory  leaders  in  the  South  during  the  Revolu- 
tionary War  may  be  mentioned  Colonel  Patrick  Ferguson,  Major  James 
Dunlap,  Captains  Patrick  and  John  Moore,  Captain  Peter  Campbell,  Captain 
Cunningham,  Major  Fraser,  Lieutenant  John  McGinnis,  Captain  Walter  Gil- 
key,  Captain  Grimes,  Captain  Wilson,  Lieutenant  Lafferty,  Captain  Alexan- 
der Cameron,  Captain  James  Kerr,  Lieutenant-Colonel  Alexander  Innes,  all 
apparently  of  Scotch  or  Scotch-Irish  origin,  and  many  of  them  born  in 
America.     In  the  West  were  Governor  Hamilton,  Dr.  John  Connolly,  the 


The  American  People  85 

Girty  brothers,  McKee,  Elliott,  and   others  ;  while  with  Howe's  northern 
army  undoubtedly  the  greatest  soldier  was  General  James  Grant. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VI. 

1  "  A  good  deal  of  surprise  was  expressed  at  the  Congress  [of  the  Scotch-Irish  Society  of 
America,  held  in  1889]  that  a  history  of  the  Scotch-Irish  had  never  been  attempted  ;  but  we 
do  not  have  to  seek  far  for  the  reason.  There  is  ample  material  from  which  to  speak  in  a 
general  way  of  their  origin  and  of  their  existence  in  Ireland,  but  when  we  come  to  their 
emigration  to  America,  excepting  the  causes  which  led  to  it,  it  is  meagre  in  the  extreme. 
Coming  from  one  part  of  Great  Britain  to  another,  no  record  has  been  preserved  of  their 
arrivals  as  would  have  been  the  case  had  they  been  of  alien  origin  ;  and  all  we  know  is  that 
while  a  large  majority  came  to  Pennsylvania,  others  settled  in  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas. 
The  country  along  the  Atlantic  coast  was  then  comparatively  thickly  settled,  and  the  Scotch- 
Irish  took  up  their  abodes  on  the  outskirts  of  civilization.  This  was  not  because  the 
Quakers  sent  them  there,  as  has  been  asserted,  to  protect  their  own  settlements  from  the 
Indians,  or  because  the  Scotch-Irish  did  not  wish  to  live  near  the  Quakers,  who  were  con- 
tinually finding  fault  with  them,  but  for  the  same  reason  that  now  takes  the  emigrants  to  the 
West, — i.  e.,  because  there  good  land  is  cheap,  and  large  families  can  be  supported  at  a  small 
expense.  They  took  with  them  their  religion  and  their  schools,  and  those  in  Pennsylvania 
extended  their  settlements  across  the  mountains  and  down  the  valley  into  Maryland  and 
Virginia.  There  they  met  with  their  brethren  from  Virginia  and  Carolina,  and  penetrated 
into  the  country  now  included  in  the  States  of  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  Excepting  in  a 
general  way  the  records  of  this  emigration  are  difficult  to  trace,  and  are  only  found  by 
examining  old  deeds,  wills,  and  in  family  tradition. 

"  It  must  also  be  remembered  that  in  no  way,  in  the  same  sense  of  the  word,  did  the 
Scotch-Irish  Presbyterians  settle  a  colony  as  the  Puritans  settled  Massachusetts,  the  Quakers 
Pennsylvania,  the  Catholics  Maryland,  or  the  Episcopalians  Virginia.  They  belonged  to 
a  later  wave  of  emigration  than  any  of  the  above,  and  when  they  arrived  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  governments  were  firmly  established.  The  consequence  is  that  there  are  no  early 
governmental  records  that  can  be  quoted  as  giving  expression  to  their  views.  Besides  this, 
the  worldly  condition  of  many  of  the  emigrants  was  not  such  as  would  permit  them  to  take 
an  active  part  in  political  affairs,  as  the  elective  franchise  was  then  limited  by  a  property 
qualification,  and  some  of  those  who  might  have  claimed  the  right  to  vote  were  too  deeply 
engaged  in  providing  for  their  families  to  take  an  active  part  in  politics.  It  was  not,  there- 
fore, until  they  gained  a  foothold,  and  by  their  thrift,  energy,  and  enterprise  made  their 
settlements  important,  that  they  exercised  any  influence  in  colonial  affairs.  When  this 
point  was  gained  they  brought  into  public  life  an  element  directly  antagonistic  to  the  estab- 
lished order  of  things,  and  no  one  can  deny  that  they  were  instrumental  in  bringing  about 
the  War  for  Independence,  which  they  loyally  supported.  What  the  result  of  their  influence 
would  have  been  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  where  they  were  pioneer  settlers,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  Revolution,  we  can  only  surmise.  After  that,  civil  and  religious  liberty  were 
such  cardinal  principles  of  government,  that  it  is  not  safe  to  attribute  them  to  any  one  class. 
The  material  for  the  history  of  the  Scotch-Irish  in  this  country  we  fear  has  been  largely 
destroyed.  Some  portion  of  it  may  yet  exist  in  private  letters,  in  church  records,  and  in 
the  diaries  that  some  of  their  ministers  wrote  while  travelling  from  one  settlement  to  an- 
other. Much  can  also  be  accomplished  by  preparing  memoirs,  as  full  of  original  material 
as  possible,  of  early  settlers  in  various  parts  of  the  country." — Frederick  D.  Stone,  in  The 
Pennsylvania  Magazine,  January,  1890. 

5  The  trouble  with  the  historical  writers  who  have  taken  upon  themselves  the  defence  of 
the  founders  of  Massachusetts  is  that  they  have  tried  to  sophisticate  away  the  facts.     In  so 


86  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

doing  they  have  of  necessity  had  recourse  to  lines  of  argument  which  they  would  not  for  an 
instant  accept  in  defence  or  extenuation  of  those  who  in  the  Old  World  pursued  the  policy 
with  which  they  find  themselves  confronted  in  the  early  record  of  the  New.  But  there  that 
record  is  :  and  it  will  not  out.  Roger  Williams,  John  Wheelwright,  and  Anne  Hutchinson 
come  back  from  their  banishment,  and  stand  there  as  witnesses  ;  the  Quakers  and  Baptists, 
with  eyes  that  forever  glare,  swing  from  the  gallows  or  turn  about  at  the  cart's  tail.  In 
Spain  it  was  the  dungeon,  the  rack,  and  the  fagot ;  in  Massachusetts  it  was  banishment,  the 
whip,  and  the  gibbet.  In  neither  case  can  the  records  be  obliterated.  Between  them  it  is 
only  a  question  of  degree, — one  may  in  color  be  a  dark  drab,  while  the  other  is  unmistakably 
a  jetty  black.  The  difficulty  is  with  those  who,  while  expatiating  with  great  force  of  lan- 
guage on  the  sooty  aspect  of  the  one,  turn  and  twist  the  other  in  the  light,  and  then  solemnly 
asseverate  its  resemblance  to  driven  snow.  Unfortunately  for  those  who  advocate  this  view 
of  the  respective  Old  and  New  World  records,  the  facts  do  not  justify  it.  On  the  contrary, 
while  the  course  in  the  matter  of  persecution  pursued  by  those  in  authority  in  the  Old  World 
was  logical  and  does  admit  of  defence,  the  course  pursued  by  the  founders  of  Massachusetts 
was  illogical,  and  does  not  admit  of  more  than  partial  extenuation.  —  Charles  Francis 
Adams,  Massachusetts  :  Its  Historians  and  Its  History \  p.  34. 

3  See  New  Englander  Magazine,  vol.  x.,  pp.  393-414,  for  an  elaborate  example  of  this 
false  enumeration. 

4  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  vol.  ii.,  p.  273. 

5  Driven  from  their  adopted  home  in  the  north  of  Ireland  by  English  persecution,  there 
was  burned  into  their  very  souls  the  bitter  recollection  of  English  ingratitude  and  English 
broken  faith.  They  were  un-English  in  their  origin,  and  they  came  to  America  —  which 
they  have  always  looked  upon  as  their  only  country  —  hating  England,  her  Church,  and  her 
form  of  government  with  the  intensest  hatred.  They  contributed  as  little  which  was  original 
to  American  institutions  as  did  the  Puritans  of  New  England  ;  but  they  were  also  as  willing 
to  accept  new  ideas  from  other  quarters,  and  they  contributed  elements  to  American  thought 
and  life  without  which  the  United  States  of  to-day  would  be  impossible.  By  them  American 
independence  was  first  openly  advocated,  and  but  for  their  efforts,  seconding  those  of  the 
New  England  Puritans,  that  independence  would  not  have  been  secured. —  Campbell,  The 
Puritan  in  Holland,  England,  and  America,  vol.  ii.,  p.  471. 

6  "  The  backwoods  mountaineers  .  .  .  were  all  cast  in  the  same  mould,  and  resembled 
each  other  much  more  than  any  of  them  did  their  immediate  neighbors  of  the  plains.  The 
backwoodsmen  of  Pennsylvania  had  little  in  common  with  the  peaceful  population  of  Quakers 
and  Germans  who  lived  between  the  Delaware  and  the  Susquehanna  ;  and  their  near  kinsmen 
of  the  Blue  Ridge  and  the  Great  Smoky  Mountains  were  separated  by  an  equally  wide  gulf 
from  the  aristocratic  planter  communities  that  flourished  in  the  tide- water  regions  of  Virginia 
and  the  Carolinas.    .    .    . 

"  The  backwoodsmen  were  Americans  by  birth  and  parentage,  and  of  mixed  race  ;  but 
the  dominant  strain  in  their  blood  was  that  of  the  Presbyterian  Irish  —  the  Scotch-Irish  as 
they  were  often  called.  .  .  .  Mingled  with  the  descendants  of  many  other  races,  they  nev- 
ertheless formed  the  kernel  of  the  distinctively  and  intensely  American  stock  who  were  the 
pioneers  of  our  people  in  their  march  westward,  the  vanguard  of  the  army  of  fighting  settlers, 
who  with  axe  and  rifle  won  their  way  from  the  Alleghanies  to  the  Rio  Grande  and  the  Pacific. 
.  .  .  The  Presbyterian  Irish  stock  furnished  Andrew  Jackson,  Samuel  Houston,  David 
Crockett,  James  Robertson,  Lewis,  the  leader  of  the  backwoods  hosts  in  their  first  great 
victory  over  the  northwestern  Indians,  and  Campbell,  their  commander  in  their  first  great 
victory  over  the  British.     .    .     . 

44  That  these  Irish  Presbyterians  were  a  bold  and  hardy  race  is  proved  by  their  at  once 
pushing  past  the  settled  regions,  and  plunging  into  the  wilderness  as  the  leaders  of  the  white 
advance.  They  were  the  first  and  last  set  of  immigrants  to  do  this  ;  all  others  have  merely 
followed  in  the  wake  of  their  predecessors.     But  indeed,  they  were  fitted  to  be  Americans 


The  American  People  87 

from  the  very  start ;  they  were  kinsfolk  of  the  Covenanters  ;  they  deemed  it  a  religious  duty 
to  interpret  their  own  Bible,  and  held  for  a  divine  right  the  election  of  their  own  clergy. 
For  generations  their  whole  ecclesiastic  and  scholastic  systems  had  been  fundamentally 
democratic.    .    .    ." — Roosevelt,  Winning  of  the  West,  vol.  i.,  pp.  102-106. 
'Pitkin's  Statistics,  p.  583  ;  Harper's  Magazine,  vol.  li.,  p.  399. 

8  John  Adams  gives  the  following  estimate  as  one  made  by  Congress  in  1774:  "  In 
the  year  1774  there  was  much  private  conversation  among  the  members  of  Congress  con- 
cerning the  number  of  souls  in  each  colony.  The  delegates  of  each  were  consulted,  and  the 
estimates  made  by  them  were  taken  down  as  follows  :  New  Hampshire,  150,000  ;  Massa- 
chusetts, 400,000 ;  Rhode  Island,  59,678  ;  Connecticut,  192,000  ;  New  York,  250,000  ; 
New  Jersey,  130,000 ;  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware,  350,000 ;  Maryland,  320,000 ;  Vir- 
ginia, 640,000  ;  North  Carolina,  300,000  ;  South  Carolina,  225,000 ;  total,  3,016,678." — 
Works,  vol.  vii.,  p.  302.  "  Governor  Pownall  thinks  that  2,142,037  would  come  nearest  to 
the  real  amount  [of  whites]  in  1774." — Ibid.,  vol.  vii.,  p.  304.  See,  also,  Holmes's  Annals, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  533,  etc.  "An  estimate  of  the  white  population  of  the  States  made  in  1783  for 
purposes  of  assessment  gives  the  number  as  2,389,300  {American  Remembrancer,  1783,  part 
ii.,  p.  64)." — McMaster,  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.,  p.  9. 

9  Pennsylvania  Archives,  First  Series,  vol.  iv.,  p.  597. 

10  History  of  the  United  States  (1888),  vol.  iv.,  p.  62. 

11  The  population  of  the  New  England  States  in  1790  was  1,009,408,  or  a  little  less  than 
one-third  of  the  total  white  population  of  3,172,006.  It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the 
population  of  the  newer  middle  colonies  increased  more  by  immigration  between  1776  and 
1790  than  that  of  New  England,  and  we  know  that  many  New  England  people  moved  into 
the  western  colonies,  particularly  to  New  York  and  Ohio.  It  is  therefore  probable  that 
an  estimate  of  New  England's  population  in  1776  fixing  it  at  one-third  of  the  whole  cannot 
be  far  out  of  the  way. 

12  The  following  estimate  of  the  white  population  in  1775,  which  does  not  vary  much  from 
that  given  in  the  table  quoted,  is  found  in  Seaman's  Essays  on  the  Progress  of  Nations,  New 
York, 1852,  pp.  579-583  :  "  Maine,  45,000 ;  New  Hampshire,  90,000  ;  Vermont,  40,000  ;  Mas- 
sachusetts, 280,000  ;  Rhode  Island,  50,000 ;  Connecticut,  195,000  [total  for  New  England, 
700,000]  ;  New  York,  175,000 ;  New  Jersey,  120,000 ;  Pennsylvania,  275,000 ;  Delaware, 
35,000 ;  Maryland,  160,000 ;  Virginia,  360,000 ;  North  Carolina,  200,000 ;  South  Carolina, 
90,000  J.Georgia,  25,000  [total,  outside  of  New  England,  1,440,000]  ;  total  for  the  thirteen 
colonies,  2,140,000."  Mr.  Seaman's  estimate  of  the  population  of  Maryland  is  perhaps  based 
on  a  census  taken  in  1755,  giving  it  107,208  white  inhabitants  ;  but  as  there  were  but  208,649 
whites  in  1790,  the  population  could  not  have  increased  as  rapidly  during  the  interim  as  in 
the  other  States,  where  it  usually  doubled  in  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  years.  Hence,  it  is 
probable  that  160,000  is  too  large  an  estimate  for  the  population  of  Maryland  in  1775,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  134,000  (about  64  per  cent,  of  the  population  in  1790)  may  be  somewhat 
below  the  true  figures.  In  New  Jersey  in  1830,  out  of  a  total  white  population  of  299,667, 
there  were  about  44,000  communicants  in  the  various  churches,  representing  with  their 
families  perhaps  200,000  persons.  Of  these,  13,517  were  Presbyterians;  15,567,  Metho- 
dists; 6,000,  Quakers;  4,173,  Dutch  Reformed;  3,981,  Baptists;  and  900,  Episcopalians. 
It  is  safe  to  say  the  Presbyterians  were  chiefly  Scottish  ;  and  likewise  a  considerable  pro- 
portion of  the  Methodists  and  Baptists,  because  in  the  South,  for  instance,  there  are  more 
persons  of  that  blood  in  those  two  churches  than  in  the  whole  membership  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  Smith,  in  his  History  of  the  Province  of  New  Jersey,  published  in  1765, 
gives  information  respecting  the  number  of  the  various  congregations  in  the  province,  from 
which  the  following  table  is  compiled  :  Episcopalians,  21  ;  Presbyterians,  65  ;  Quakers,  39  ; 
Baptists,  20  ;  Seventh-Day  Baptists,  2  ;  Low  Dutch  Calvinists,  or  Reformed,  21  ;  Dutch 
Lutherans,  4  ;  Swedish  Lutherans,  4  ;  Moravians,  1 ;  German  Lutherans,  2  ;  Separatists,  1 ; 
Rogerians,  1  ;  Lutherans,  I  ;  total,  179,     In  Pennsylvania  in  1760  there  were  31,667  taxables 


88  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

(Colonial  Records,  vol.  xiv.,  p.  336).  At  that  time  a  large  part  of  the  frontier  inhabitants 
were  not  entered  on  the  tax-lists  (see  Proud's  History  of  Pennsylvania,  vol.  ii.,  p.  275, 
note).  Delaware  formed  part  of  Pennsylvania  prior  to  1776,  and  was  largely  overrun  by 
the  Scotch-Irish  before  they  reached  the  Susquehanna  valley.  A  considerable  part  of  western 
Maryland  was  settled  by  Scottish  emigrants,  as  well  as  Cecil  and  Somerset  counties  on 
the  Eastern  Shore,  and  many  districts  around  Baltimore.  Jefferson  states  in  his  Auto- 
biography (p.  31),  that  in  1776  a  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  Virginia  were  Dissenters 
(at  that  time  chiefly  Presbyterians  and  Baptists),  and  as  one-fourth  of  the  total  white  popu- 
lation was  in  the  upper  country  and  west  of  the  mountains  (see  Virginia  Militia  returns  in 
1782,  annexed  to  chapter  ix.,  Jefferson's  Notes  on  Virginia),  and  that  fourth  almost  to  a 
man  of  Scottish  ancestry,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  of  the  whole  white  population  those 
people  comprised  nearly  one-fourth.  Williamson  (History  of  North  Carolina,  vol.  ii. ,  p.  68) 
says  that  the  Scottish  race  was  the  most  numerous  in  the  northwestern  part  of  Carolina;  and 
we  know  that  they  comprised  nearly  the  whole  of  the  population  of  Tennessee  (then  part  of 
North  Carolina).  Ramsay  says  they  were  more  numerous  than  any  other  race  in  South  Caro- 
lina (History  of  South  Carolina,  vol.  i.,  p.  20);  and  they  likewise  formed,  if  not  a  majority,  at 
least  a  controlling  element  in  the  population  of  Georgia.  To-day  their  descendants  in  the 
Carolinas,  Georgia,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  and  West  Virginia  form  the  most  influential  and 
presumably  the  most  numerous  element  in  the  white  population  of  those  States;  and  in  all  pro- 
bability the  same  thing  is  true  of  the  native-born  population  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois. 

"  When  the  first  Continental  Congress  began  its  sittings,  the  only  frontiersmen  west  of  the 
mountains,  and  beyond  the  limits  of  continuous  settlement  within  the  old  thirteen  colonies, 
were  the  two  or  three  hundred  citizens  of  the  little  Watauga  commonwealth.  This  quali- 
fication is  put  in  because  there  were  already  a  few  families  on  the  Monongahela  [this  is  in- 
correct, because  there  were  7500  to  10,000  settlers  in  Westmoreland  County,  Pa.,  before  1776], 
the  head  of  the  Kanawha,  and  the  Upper  Holston  ;  but  they  were  in  close  touch  with  the 
people  behind  them.  When  peace  was  declared  with  Great  Britain,  the  backwoodsmen  had 
spread  westward  in  groups,  almost  to  the  Mississippi,  and  they  had  increased  in  number  to 
some  twenty-five  thousand  souls,  of  whom  a  few  hundred  dwelt  in  the  bend  of  the  Cumber- 
land, while  the  rest  were  about  equally  divided  between  Kentucky  and  Holston.  These 
figures  are  simply  estimates  ;  but  they  are  based  on  careful  study  and  comparison,  and,  though 
they  must  be  some  hundreds,  and  maybe  some  thousands,  out  of  the  way,  are  quite  near 
enough  for  practical  purposes." — Roosevelt,   Winning  of  the  West,  vol.  ii.,  p.  370. 

13  "  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  were  so  nearly  divided  —  if  their  propensity  was  not 
against  us  —  that  if  New  England  on  one  side  and  Virginia  on  the  other  had  not  kept  them 
in  awe,  they  would  have  joined  the  British." — Works  of  John  Adams,  vol.  x.,  p.  63.  This 
opinion  of  John  Adams,  which  he  affirmed  more  than  once  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  was 
on  one  occasion  mentioned  by  him  in  a  letter  to  his  old  compatriot,  Thomas  McKean,  Chief 
Justice  of  Pennsylvania,  a  signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  a  member  of 
every  American  Congress  from  that  of  1765  to  the  close  of  the  Revolution.  "You  say," 
wrote  McKean  in  reply,  "that  .  .  .  about  a  third  of  the  people  of  the  colonies  were 
against  the  Revolution.  It  required  much  reflection  before  I  could  fix  my  opinion  on  this 
subject  ;  but  on  mature  deliberation  I  conclude  you  are  right,  and  that  more  than  a  third  of 
influential  characters  were  against  it  "  (Adams's  Works,  vol.  x.,  pp.  63,  no). — Sparks,  Wash- 
ington, vol.  ii.,  p.  496. 

John  Adams  was  of  the  opinion  that  only  about  a  third  of  the  people  were  averse  to  the 
Revolution,  but  in  1780  in  his  letters  to  Calkoen,  written  to  secure  Dutch  sympathy,  he  flatly 
affirms  that  the  Tories  constituted  not  a  twentieth  of  the  population,  which  may  mean  that 
he  thought  the  French  alliance  and  the  progress  of  the  war  had  diminished  at  that  time 
the  body  of  its  opponents. — Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  vol.  vii., 
p.  187. 

It  is  probably  below  the  truth  to  say  that  a  full  half  of  the  more  honorable  and  respected 


The  American  People  89 

Americans  was  either  openly  or  secretly  hostile  to  the  Revolution. — Lecky,  England  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  iv.,  p.  153. 

14  "  Of  the  New  England  colonies  Connecticut  had  the  greatest  number  of  Tories,  and 
next  in  proportion  to  population  was  the  district  which  was  afterwards  known  as  the 
State  of  Vermont. 

"  .  .  .  In  Virginia,  especially  after  hostilities  began,  the  Tories  were  decidedly  less  in 
number  than  the  Whigs.  In  North  Carolina,  the  two  parties  were  about  evenly  divided. 
In  South  Carolina,  the  Tories  were  the  numerous  party ;  while  in  Georgia  their  majority 
was  so  great  that,  in  1781,  they  were  preparing  to  detach  that  colony  from  the  general 
movement  of  the  rebellion,  and  probably  would  have  done  so,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
embarrassing  accident  which  happened  to  Cornwallis  at  Yorktown  in  the  latter  part  of  that 
year." — Moses  Coit  Tyler,  in  American  Historical  Review,  vol.  i.,  p.  28  (October,  1895). 

Considerable  information  in  regard  to  the  Loyalists  may  be  found  in  Winsor's  Narrative 
and  Critical  History  of  America,  vol.  vii.,  pp.  185-214,  and  in  Sabine's  Loyalists  of  the 
Revolution. 

15  A  strong  contrast  to  the  political  apathy  of  these  worthy  men  [the  Germans  of  South 
Carolina]  was  to  be  found  in  the  rugged  population  of  the  upland  counties.  Here,  the  small 
farmers  of  Scotch-Irish  descent  were,  every  man  of  them,  Whigs,  burning  with  a  patriotic 
ardor  that  partook  of  the  nature  of  religious  fanaticism  ;  while  on  the  other  hand  the  [High- 
land] Scotsmen  who  had  come  over  since  Culloden  were  mostly  Tories,  and  had  by  no 
means  as  yet  cast  off  that  half-savage  type  of  Highland  character  which  we  find  so  vividly 
portrayed  in  the  Waverley  novels. — Fiske,  American  Revolution,  vol.  ii.,  p.  165. 

The  single  exception  was  that  of  some  of  the  Highlanders  in  North  Carolina  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Revolution.  Banished  from  Scotland  for  taking  up  arms  for  the  Pretender, 
their  pardon  was  conditioned  on  a  solemn  oath  of  allegiance  to  their  sovereign.  Such  obli- 
gations they  regarded  with  peculiar  sacredness,  and  they  had  required  the  king  to  swear  to 
the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  Not  feeling  to  any  great  degree  the  evils  complained  of 
by  the  other  colonists,  they  were  slow  to  engage  in  the  contest.  Some  of  them  at  first 
sympathized  with  and  aided  the  royalists  ;  but  when  the  monarchical  government  came  to  an 
end,  they  became  the  fast  friends  and  supporters  of  republican  institutions.  We  may  respect 
their  moral  principles,  while  we  deplore  their  error  of  judgment,  that  led  them  at  first  to 
battle  with  freemen  who  were  only  demanding  their  rights. — Craighead,  Scotch  and  Irish 
Seeds  in  American  Soil,  p.  315.  See  also  Colonial  Records  of  North  Carolina,  vol.  v.,  pp. 
1194-98. 

16  See  Appendix  E  (Parliamentary  Examination  of  Joseph  Galloway,  March,  1779). 


CHAPTER  VII 

AMERICAN  IDEALS  MORE  SCOTTISH  THAN  ENGLISH 

IT  is  difficult  to  understand  the  grounds  for  claiming  that  the  credit  for  the 
conception  or  development  of  the  principle  of  man's  equality  belongs  to 
the  English.  So  far  as  history  and  the  observation  of  life  reveal,  that  prin- 
ciple is  not  established  in  England  to-day,  nor  even  recognized  by  any 
more  than  a  small  part  of  its  population.  Still  less  was  it  the  case  more 
than  a  hundred  years  ago,  either  in  England  or  in  English  colonies.  The 
distinctions  of  caste  remained  longer  as  bitter  realities  in  Massachusetts  than 
they  did  in  Virginia  ;  and  so  far  from  either  of  those  States  being  the  first  to 
introduce  the  principles  of  democracy,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  overstating  it 
to  say  that  Quaker  Pennsylvania,  with  two-thirds  of  its  population  non-Eng- 
glish,  had  more  real  freedom  and  political  equality  twenty  years  before  1787, 
than  Massachusetts  or  Virginia  had  twenty  years  after  that  date.  Neither 
can  it  be  considered  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  those  embryonic  principles 
of  civil  liberty  which  first  were  brought  to  New  England  by  the  Pilgrims 
from  Holland,  then  for  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  buried  and  forgotten 
in  the  sterile  soil  of  later  New  England  Puritanism,  and  which  finally  seemed 
to  germinate  spontaneously  and  produce  such  abundant  fruit  during  the 
Revolutionary  period,  did  not  come  chiefly  from  England,  but  came  rather 
from  the  influence  of  the  French  writers,  and  from  Switzerland  and  the 
Dutch  Republic. 

Prior  to  1850  Massachusetts  remained  essentially  English,  and  would  be 
so  to-day  were  it  not  for  the  large  influx  of  foreign  population  during  the 
past  fifty  years.  If  there  is  any  one  characteristic  that  distinguishes 
the  Englishman  more  than  another,  it  is  his  persistent  assertion  —  and, 
where  he  is  able,  the  maintenance  —  of  his  own  rights.  This  is  doubtless  a 
consequence  of  his  Teutonic  nature.  It  comes  from  the  realization  of  his 
own  intrinsic  excellence,  and  from  that  spirit  which  prompts  him  to  go  out 
and  subdue  the  earth.  Unless  constantly  held  in  check,  however,  it  is  very 
easy  for  him  to  overstep  the  line  between  his  own  rights  and  the  rights  of 
others  ;  and  so  far  as  he  is  free  to  act  upon  his  own  racial  instincts,  he  does 
overstep  this  line.  This  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion. If  the  Englishman  did  not  do  so  unto  others  it  might  be  so  done  unto 
him.  We  see  manifestations  of  this  encroaching  spirit,  in  all  aspects  of 
English  life  or  history,  from  the  time  of  Hengist  and  Horsa  down  to  the 
time  of  Jameson's  Raid,  and  from  the  days  of  John  Smith  and  John  Win- 
throp  down  to  the  days  of  the  year  1901.  It  is  this  aggressive  spirit  which 
proudly  points  the  way  to  the  universal  dominion  of  the  so-called  Anglo- 
Saxon  race  ;  and  it  is  the  one  attribute  without  which  the  Anglo-Saxon's 

90 


American  Ideals 


91 


further  racial  progress,  according  to  his  own  view,  would  be  impossible. 
Hence,  to  repeat,  the  Englishman  has  a  greater  regard  for  his  own  rights  than 
for  those  of  others.  So  truly  is  this  the  case,  that  the  rights  of  his  weaker 
neighbor  are  invariably  sacrificed,  whenever  the  two  clash  together.  As  a 
result,  there  can  be  no  real  equality  among  the  English.  There  is  not  such 
a  thing  in  England  to-day,  nor  indeed  any  pretence  of  it.  Socially,  the  dis- 
tinctions of  caste  and  rank  are  perhaps  not  so  strongly  marked  there  between 
the  various  classes  as  were  those  between  master  and  slave  in  early  America, 
but  the  distance  between  the  high  and  the  low  is  almost  as  great, —  and  the 
abject  wretchedness  of  the  poorest  class  in  England  is  far  more  noticeable. 
The  opportunities  of  the  individual  are  likewise  restricted  wholly  to  those  of 
his  particular  class,  and  it  is  only  by  a  miracle  that  he  can  ever  hope  to  break 
through  into  a  higher  and  better  association. 

Down  to  a  few  years  before  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  Englishman  of 
New  England  did  not  differ  greatly  from  his  kinsmen  at  home.  He  had  the 
same  aggressive  and  independent  nature,  the  same  reverence  for  ecclesiastical 
and  political  power,  the  same  suspicion,  jealousy,  and  hatred  of  things  not 
English,  and  the  same  bitter  intolerance  and  persecuting  spirit  for  all  opinions 
not  identical  with  his  own.  The  Puritans  who  came  to  Massachusetts  before 
1640  soon  forgot  the  lessons  of  forbearance  and  justice  they  had  learned  at 
home  when  persecuted  for  conscience*  sake.  They  and  their  children  re- 
tained the  pride  of  caste,  the  arrogance,  the  narrow-mindedness,  and  the 
bigotry  of  the  ruling  class  at  home.  They  made  laws  prohibiting  people  of 
the  poorer  classes  from  wearing  as  good  clothing  as  their  superiors  in  wealth 
and  position.  They  established  a  State  church,  and  enforced  conformity  to 
its  worship  and  universal  contributions  to  its  support,  by  means  of  the 
whipping-post,  the  jails,  and  the  gibbet.1  They  limited  suffrage  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Established  Church  ;  and  during  most  of  the  time  they  required 
qualifications  for  church-membership  which  were  wholly  secular  and  which 
had  no  connection  whatever  with  religion.9 

In  all  respects,  their  government  prior  to  1760  partook  only  of  the  nature 
of  an  ecclesiastical  and  aristocratic  oligarchy,  and  it  was  more  than  sixty 
years  after  that  time  before  the  principle  of  equal  rights  became  fully  estab- 
lished in  Massachusetts.* 

In  America,  as  in  every  other  country,  the  first  to  appreciate  the  necessity 
for  man's  equality  before  the  law  were  those  who  had  suffered  most  from 
the  perversions  of  justice.  These  were  the  early  Pilgrims,  the  Quakers,  the 
Catholics,  the  Baptists,  and  the  Scotch-Irish  Presbyterians.  As  a  rule,  the 
oppressed  can  better  be  relied  upon  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong 
than  the  oppressors.  They  have  a  keener  moral  sense,  and  their  more  active 
exercise  of  nature's  first  instinct  teaches  them  the  necessity  of  giving  due 
deference  to  the  rights  of  their  fellow  men. 

As  we  know,  laws  are  but  limitations  upon  arbitrary  power  ;  and  the 
battle  for  man's  industrial,  political,  and  religious  freedom  has  ever  been  a 


92  The  Scotch- Irish  Families  of  America 

contest  between  vested  interests  and  highly  privileged  power  on  the  one  side, 
and  unaided,  suffering,  and  burden-bearing  humanity  on  the  other.  Injus- 
tice must  be  long  endured  and  its  oppressions  made  intolerable  before  the 
weaker  masses  who  suffer  from  its  burdens  can  acquire  enough  intelligent 
strength  to  resist,  and  to  bring  about  reforms.  Reforms  rarely  originate 
with  the  power-holding  classes  ;  but  are  granted  by  them  as  concessions  — 
indeed,  usually  wrung  from  them  by  repeated  and  urgent  protests,  prayers, 
and,  at  certain  long  intervals,  by  the  sword  of  the  revolutionist. 

The  oppressed  and  persecuted,  therefore,  are  those  to  whom  mankind 
owes  its  greatest  social  blessings.  They  ever  stand  as  living  witnesses  against 
injustice  and  tyranny.  They  are  the  first  to  demand  reforms.  In  the  days 
of  Rome,  they  raised  the  standard  of  the  Cross,  around  which  in  due  time 
the  men  of  all  nations  gathered.  Under  this  standard  was  erected  later  the 
most  effective  system  ever  devised  by  the  genius  of  man  for  curbing  the 
despots  of  paganism — a  system  so  well  organized,  indeed,  that  when  the  evils 
which  it  was  created  to  destroy  had  been  wellnigh  stamped  out  it  gave  those 
evils  a  new  lease  on  life  by  introducing  their  spirit  into  its  own  religious  pol- 
ity, resulting  in  the  massacres  of  the  Reformation  period. 

So,  in  the  days  of  John  Knox,  the  blood  of  the  early  Scottish  martyrs 
was  the  seed  not  only  of  the  British  Protestant  Church,  but  of  the  greater 
tree  of  human  liberty,  which  grew  up  and  flourished  under  his  fostering  care; 
yielding  its  fruits  in  abundant  measure  when  the  time  came  for  Scotland 
to  take  the  lead  against  tyranny  and  to  preserve  for  herself,  for  England,  and 
for  all  mankind  the  threatened  heritage  of  granted  liberties.4 

To  a  vastly  greater  extent  does  America  owe  her  love  of  liberty  to 
those  who  had  suffered  from  persecution.  At  an  early  day  becoming  the 
harbor  and  home  of  the  oppressed  of  all  nations,  its  shores  ever  received  the 
exiles,  the  refugees,  and  the  proscribed  of  the  monarchies  of  Europe.  Here 
came  the  Pilgrim,  the  Puritan,  the  Baptist,  the  Quaker,  the  Mennonite,  the 
Moravian,  the  Catholic,  the  Huguenot,  and  the  Presbyterian.  Here  these 
people  felled  the  forests,  subdued  the  wilderness,  planted  the  soil,  established 
towns,  raised  schoolhouses,  built  churches,  and  in  every  way  prepared  them- 
selves to  guard  the  precious  treasure  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  which  they 
had  crossed  unknown  seas  to  obtain.  However,  with  the  lapse  of  years  and 
the  coming  of  children  and  grandchildren,  some  of  them  grew  to  forget  the 
lessons  of  liberty  which  they  had  learned  in  the  old  world,  and  remembered 
only  the  deeper-grounded  hereditary  admonitions  of  their  earlier  persecut- 
ing forefathers.  These  colonists  reverted  to  the  same  life  of  injustice  and 
oppression  which  their  cousins  still  lived  at  home. 

This,  as  has  been  already  intimated,  and  as  we  shall  more  fully  perceive 
in  the  pages  following,  was  particularly  the  case  in  New  England  and  Virginia. 
In  the  former  colony,  the  retrogression  was  rapid  and  marked.  To  use  the 
expression  of  its  most  candid  native  expositor,  the  period  between  1637  and 
1760  was  the  "  glacial "  age  of  Massachusetts.'     In  early  Virginia  there  never 


American  Ideals  93 

was  much  of  Freedom's  light  let  in.  Its  early  settlers  were  English  Royalists, 
so-called  Cavaliers,  who  were  Episcopalian  conformists,  and  dissent  of  any 
kind  was  prohibited  by  the  severest  penalties.  The  institution  of  slavery 
was  established  there  before  the  expulsion  of  the  Stuarts  from  England,  and 
the  slave  trade  was  encouraged  and  maintained  by  British  adventurers  and 
Yankee  skippers,*  notwithstanding  the  protest  of  many  of  Virginia's  most 
eminent  men,' 

In  New  England,  until  the  Scotch  came,  the  sole  guardians  of  liberty  were 
the  Separatists,  the  Quakers,  and  the  Baptists.  The  first,  because  of  their 
liberal  views,  were  forced  to  remove  from  Massachusetts  to  Connecticut  and 
Maryland,  and  the  others  were  driven  into  Rhode  Island  and  New  Jersey. 
In  the  central  colonies,  those  who  kept  alive  the  sacred  flame  were  found  at 
first  in  Maryland,  but  later  chiefly  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey, 
where  the  Quakers  had  early  settled  and  where  afterwards  came  the  Mo- 
ravians, the  Lutherans,  the  Huguenots,  the  Catholics,  and  the  Covenanters. 
These  two  colonies  became  the  only  secure  retreats  for  all  the  persecuted  of 
Europe,  of  Britain,  of  New  England,  and  of  the  Episcopalian  colonies  of  the 
South.8  Here  was  the  landing-place  of  more  than  three-fourths  of  the 
Protestant  emigrants  from  Ireland,  and  here  they  lived,  increased,  spread 
out  over  the  south  and  west,  and  carried  into  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  the 
Carolinas  their  democratic  principles  of  human  equality,  of  the  responsibility 
of  the  governor  to  the  governed,  and  of  the  supremacy  of  conscience  over 
all  established  forms  of  thought,  government,  or  worship. 

It  was  not  until  a  long  time  after  the  beginning  of  the  present  century 
that  freedom  of  worship  prevailed  in  Massachusetts.  Up  to  the  middle  of 
the  preceding  one,  it  was  not  safe  for  a  visiting  Presbyterian  minister  to 
preach  in  that  colony  or  in  Connecticut.  In  1740,  a  few  Scotch-Irish 
families  lived  in  Worcester.  After  infinite  labor  and  pains,  and  with  con- 
siderable sacrifice  on  their  part,  they  began  the  erection  of  a  small  meeting- 
house within  the  confines  of  that  village.  The  framework  of  the  building 
had  been  reared,  and  the  structure  was  being  pushed  to  completion,  when, 
one  dark  night,  a  body  of  citizens,  representing  the  majesty  of  the  State  and 
the  Puritan  Church,  secretly  assembled  before  the  partially  erected  build- 
ing. Having  made  all  preparations,  they  began  to  demolish  the  structure, 
and  before  morning  had  razed  it  to  the  ground.  The  offensive  Presbyte- 
rians were  not  permitted  to  rebuild,  but  were  obliged  to  remove  to  the 
frontiers.  These  Scots,  and  their  fellow-colonists  in  Londonderry,  New 
Hampshire,  gave  to  America  Matthew  Thornton,  Hugh  McCulloch,  Salmon 
P.  Chase,  Charles  Foster,  George  B.  McClellan,  Asa  Gray,  Horace  Greeley, 
General  John  Stark,  and  perhaps,  also,  Henry  Knox,  the  Boston  bookseller, 
whom  Washington  so  highly  honored.  Reverend  Samuel  Finley,  a  Scotch- 
Irish  Presbyterian,  afterwards  president  of  Princeton  College,  was  arrested 
and  imprisoned  in  Connecticut  in  1742-43,  because  he  ventured  to  preach 
in  that  colony  without  an  invitation  from  a  minister  of  one  of  the  established 


94  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

churches.  Francis  Makemie,  the  father  of  American  Presbyterianism, 
was  likewise  arrested  and  imprisoned  in  New  York,  in  1707,  because  he 
held  services  in  the  city  of  that  name  as  a  Presbyterian  minister.  New 
Jersey,  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania,  and  Maryland  were  the  only  colonies 
in  which  there  was  any  approach  to  freedom  of  worship  during  the  first  half 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  Down  to  the  beginning  of  the  Revolutionary 
period,  Virginia  was,  if  anything,  more  intolerant  than  Massachusetts.  Dis- 
senting ministers  were  imprisoned  there  after  the  year  1760,  according 
to  Patrick  Henry's  reading  of  their  bill  of  indictment,  for  "preaching  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  That  State  was  the  first,  however,  to  adopt  a 
constitution  declaring  for  a  total  separation  of  Church  and  State  ;  and  it 
was  owing  to  the  earnest  fight  against  the  intolerable  inflictions  of  the  old 
laws,  a  fight  made  chiefly  by  the  Scotch-Irish  composing  the  Presbytery  of 
Hanover,9  that,  beginning  in  1776,  these  laws  were  finally  swept  from  the 
statute-books.  In  contrasting  the  New  England  and  the  Southern  colonies, 
Mr.  Douglas  Campbell  points  out  the  racial  differences  in  their  respective 
populations,  and  thus  reveals  the  true  reason  for  the  differences  in  their 
treatment  of  the  matter  of  religious  liberty.     He  says  10  : 

The  New  England  Colonies  were  republics,  but  not  democracies.  Most 
of  them  had  state  churches  ;  their  suffrage,  though  broad,  was  restricted, 
and  among  their  people  social  distinctions  were  very  marked.  When  these 
colonies  became  States  they  clung,  with  true  English  tenacity,  to  their  old 
traditions,  and  looked  with  horror  upon  the  levelling  democratic  theories 
advanced  in  other  quarters.  In  the  South,  on  the  other  hand,  with  its  large 
and  influential  Scotch-Irish  population,  the  natural  tendency  was  to  get  as  far 
as  possible  from  the  past.  These  men  hated  England  as  the  New  Engend- 
ers never  did,  and  they  also  hated  all  her  institutions.  Their  religion  had 
taught  them  the  absolute  equality  of  man,  and  on  this  point  they  were  in 
full  accord  with  men  like  Jefferson,  who  had  learned  the  same  principle 
from  the  philosophers  of  France.  Here,  then,  in  this  difference  of  race  we 
may  perhaps  find  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  Virginia,  formerly  the  most 
aristocratic,  became  the  most  democratic  in  theory  of  all  the  States  ;  while 
Massachusetts,  standing  on  old  conservative  ways,  became  the  chief  expo- 
nent of  the  opposing  theories.  One  thing  is  very  clear  —  from  no  English 
element  of  the  population,  except  the  Separatists,  would  have  come  the  ideas 
of  human  equality,  freedom  of  religion,  separation  of  Church  and  State,  and 
universal  suffrage. 

Peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  consideration  of  these  questions  are  the 
lectures  delivered  by  Charles  Francis  Adams,  at  Cambridge,  in  1893,  which 
have  since  been  published  in  an  enlarged  form,  under  the  title  of  Massa- 
chusetts :  Its  Historians  and  Its  History.  Some  of  Mr.  Adams's  observations 
may  be  cited  here  : 

So  far  as  the  principles  of  civil  liberty  and  human  right  are  concerned, 
Massachusetts  has  always  been  at  the  front.  .  .  .  The  backbone  of  the 
movement  which  preceded  the  French  Revolution,  she  inspired  the  agitation 
which  ended  in  the  fall  of  African  slavery. 


American  Ideals 


95 


Such  has  been  the  Massachusetts  record  as  respects  equality  before  the 
law  ;  as  respects  religious  toleration,  it  has  been  of  a  character  wholly- 
different.  Upon  that  issue,  indeed,  not  only  has  Massachusetts  failed  to 
make  herself  felt,  but  her  record  as  a  whole,  and  until  a  comparatively  recent 
period,  has  been  scarcely  even  creditable.  This,  too,  was  the  case  from  the 
beginning. 

The  story  opens  with  the  contested  charter  election  of  1637,  as  a  result 
of  which  Governor  John  Winthrop  replaced  Governor  Sir  Harry  Vane  as 
chief  executive  of  the  colony.  This  election  took  place  ...  on  the  27th 
day  of  May.  Four  months  later  it  was  followed  by  the  gathering  of  the  first 
Synod  of  Massachusetts  churches.  .  .  .  The  Synod  sat  through  twenty- 
four  days,  during  which  it  busied  itself  unearthing  heterodox  opinions  and 
making  the  situation  uncomfortable  for  those  suspected  of  heresy.  .  .  . 
Finally  .  .  .  took  place  the  trial  of  the  arch-heretic,  Mistress  Anne 
Hutchinson  ;  and  on  the  18th  of  November,  1637,  she  was  condemned  to 
banishment. 

As  the  twig  is  bent,  the  tree  inclines.  The  Massachusetts  twig  was  here 
and  then  bent ;  and,  as  it  was  bent,  it  during  hard  upon  two  centuries 
inclined.  The  question  of  Religious  Toleration  was,  so  far  as  Massachusetts 
could  decide  it,  decided  in  1637  in  the  negative.  On  that  issue  Massa- 
chusetts then  definitely  and  finally  renounced  all  claim  or  desire  to  head  the 
advancing  column,  or  even  to  be  near  the  head  of  the  column  ;  it  did  not  go 
to  the  rear,  but  it  went  well  towards  it,  and  there  it  remained  until  the  issue 
was  decided.  But  it  is  curious  to  note  from  that  day  to  this  how  the  exponents 
of  Massachusetts  polity  and  thought,  whether  religious  or  historical,  have, 
so  to  speak,  wriggled  and  squirmed  in  the  presence  of  the  record.  .  .  . 
They  did  so  in  1637,  when  they  were  making  the  record  up  ;  they  have  done 
so  ever  since.  There  was  almost  no  form  of  sophistry  to  which  the  founders 
of  Massachusetts  did  not  have  recourse  then, — for  they  sinned  against  light, 
though  they  deceived  themselves  while  sinning ;  and  there  is  almost  no  form 
of  sophistry  to  which  the  historians  of  Massachusetts  have  not  had  recourse 
since, — really  deceiving  themselves  in  their  attempt  to  deceive  others.    .    .    . 

The  first  decision,  and  the  policy  subsequently  pursued  in  accordance 
with  it,  were  distinct,  authoritative,  and  final, — against  religious  toleration. 
.  .  .  The  offence,  as  well  as  the  policy  to  be  pursued  by  the  government, 
was  explicitly  and  unmistakably  set  forth  by  the  chief  executive  and  the 
presiding  official  at  the  trial  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson,  when  Governor  Winthrop 
said  to  her, — "  Your  course  is  not  to  be  suffered  ;  .  .  .  we  see  not  that  any 
should  have  authority  to  set  up  any  other  exercises  besides  what  authority 
hath  already  set  up."    .    .    . 

I  have  cited  Urian  Oakes,  President  of  Harvard  College  from  1675  to 
1681.  He  was  succeeded  by  Increase  Mather,  who  was  President  from  1685 
to  1 701  ;  and  in  1685  Increase  Mather  thus  delivered  himself  on  the  subject 
of  religious  liberty  : 

"  Moreover,  sinful  Toleration  is  an  evil  of  exceeding  dangerous  conse- 
quence :  Men  of  Corrupt  minds  though  they  may  plead  for  Toleration,  and 
Cry  up  Liberty  of  Conscience,  etc.,  yet  if  once  they  should  become  numerous 
and  get  power  into  their  hands,  none  would  persecute  more  than  they.  .  .  . 
And  indeed  the  Toleration  of  all  Religions  and  Perswasions,  is  the  way  to 
have  no  true  Religion  at  all  left.  ...  I  do  believe  that  Antichrist  hath  not 
at  this  day  a  more  probable  way  to  advance  his  Kingdom  of  Darkness,  than 
by  a  Toleration  of  all  Religions  and  Perswasions."  (A  Call  to  the  Rising 
Generation,  1685,  pp.  107,  108.)     .     .     . 


96  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

So  far  as  America  is  concerned,  it  is  greatly  to  be  feared  that  we  in  the 
matter  of  historical  work  are  yet  in  the  filio-pietistic  and  patriotic  stage  of 
development.  "  Ancestor  worship  "  is  the  rule,  and  an  excellent  illustration 
of  the  results  to  which  that  worship  leads  those  given  to  it  is  afforded  in  the 
treatment  which  has  been  accorded  to  that  portion  of  the  Massachusetts 
record  which  relates  to  religious  toleration.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
the  resources  of  sophistry  and  special  pleading  have  been  exhausted  in  the 
attempt  to  extenuate  or  explain  it  away.  On  its  face  it  presents  difficulties 
of  an  obvious  nature  :  wholesale  proscription  ;  frequent  banishment  under 
penalty  of  death  in  case  of  return  ;  the  infliction  of  punishments  both  cruel 
and  degrading,  amounting  to  torture,  and  that  regardless  of  the  sex  of  those 
punished  ;  the  systematic  enforcement  of  rigid  conformity  through  long 
periods  of  time  ; — all  these  things  are  part  of  the  record  : — and  in  these 
bad  respects  it  is  not  at  once  apparent  how  the  Massachussets  record  differs 
from  those  of  Spain  or  France  or  England.  But  the  Massachusetts  school 
of  historians,  undismayed  by  the  difficulties  which  confronted  it,  has  ad- 
dressed itself  to  the  task  in  such  a  blind  sense  of  filial  devotion  that  the 
self-deception  of  many,  and  not  the  least  eminent  of  those  composing  the 
school,  has  been  complete.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  have  such  remarks  made, 
but  there  is  a  certain  justice  in  Sir  Henry  Maine's  reference,  to  "  the  nauseous 
grandiloquence  of  the  American  panegyrical  historian  "  (Popular  Govern- 
ment^ p.  222)  ;  and  J.  A.  Doyle  might  have  extended  his  criticism  of  the 
early  New  England  chroniclers, —  that  in  reading  their  writings  "we  are 
reading  not  a  history  but  a  hagiology," — so  as  to  include  not  a  few  later 
investigators.     .     .     . 

Again,  approaching  a  yet  larger  question, —  the  question  of  Toleration. 
Confronted  with  the  record  on  that  matter,  the  Massachusetts  historian,  so 
free  and  frank  in  his  denunciation  of  English  and  Italian  and  Spanish 
ecclesiastical  bigotry  and  intolerance,  proceeds  to  argue  that,  after  all,  "  re- 
ligious intolerance,  like  every  other  public  restraint,  is  criminal  wherever  it 
is  not  needful  for  the  public  safety  :  it  is  simply  self-defence  whenever 
toleration  would  be  public  ruin."  (Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  1864, 
i.,  300.)  These  words  from  the  latest  and  most  elaborate  history  of  New 
England  sound  like  an  echo, —  loud,  reverberating,  close  at  hand, —  of  the 
utterance  of  two  centuries  before.  Thus  Increase  Mather,  later  president  of 
Harvard  College,  expressed  himself  in  1681  :  "The  place  may  sometimes 
make  a  great  alteration,  as  to  indulgence  to  be  expected.  It  is  evident,  that 
that  Toleration  is  in  one  place  not  only  lawful,  but  a  necessary  duty, 
which  in  another  place  would  be  destructive,  and  the  expectation  of  it 
irrational."     .     .     . 

The  stronger  and  more  stimulating  the  food,  the  sooner  any  undue  quan- 
tity of  it  is  felt ;  until,  in  the  case  of  wine,  while  a  carefully  measured  use 
may  stimulate  the  healthy  and  nourish  the  sick,  excess  brings  on  fever  and 
delirium.  Rhode  Island  went  through  this  experience  in  its  early  days.  It 
was,  so  to  speak,  the  dumping-ground  for  the  surplus  intellectual  activity  of 
New  England.  .  .  .  Thus  what  was  a  good  and  most  necessary  element 
in  the  economy  of  nature  and  the  process  of  human  development  was  an 
excess  in  Rhode  Island  ;  and  the  natural  result  followed, —  a  disordered 
community.  .  .  .  But  it  by  no  means  followed  that  what  disordered  infant 
Rhode  Island  would  have  proved  more  than  a  healthy  stimulant  for  larger 
and  more  matured  Massachusetts.  In  its  spirit  of  rigid  conformity,  Massa- 
chusetts rejected  and  expelled  whatever  did  not  immediately  assimilate  ; 
and  so  did  Spain.     Indeed,  Spain  regarded  Holland  much  as  Massachusetts 


American  Ideals  97 

regarded  Rhode  Island  .  .  .  the  only  trouble  was  that  while  Massachusetts 
did  not  have  enough  of  the  stimulant,  Rhode  Island  had  too  much.    ... 

But,  as  I  have  observed,  this  fact  the  inhabitants  of  Massachusetts  could 
not  see  then,  and  the  Massachusetts  school  of  historians  has  refused  to  see 
it  since.  Those  composing  that  school  have  systematically  narrowed  their 
vision  ;  and  denouncing  the  rulers  of  Spain  and  France  and  England  for 
bigotry,  intolerance,  and  cruelty, — shutting  their  eyes  to  Holland  .  .  .  they 
have  pointed  to  Rhode  Island  as  an  example  of  what  must  inevitably  have 
ensued  had  the  rulers  of  Massachusetts  in  its  formative  period  not  pursued 
that  policy  of  which  Philip  II.  was  the  great  and  only  wholly  successful  ex- 
positor. In  other  words,  they  insist  that  in  the  seventeenth  century  toleration 
meant  chaos, — "  had  our  early  ancestors  .  .  .  placed  their  government  on 
the  basis  of  liberty  for  all  sorts  of  consciences,  it  would  have  been  in  that 
age  a  certain  introduction  of  anarchy"  (Ellis,  Memorial  History  of  Boston, 
i.,  127)  ;  and  in  proof  of  this  they  point  to  Rhode  Island.    .    .    . 

It  was  not  until  after  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  in  1787 
that  the  political  agitation  which  for  Massachusetts  began  in  1760  can  be 
said  to  have  practically  subsided.  .  .  .  During  that  period,  nearly  the  life- 
time of  a  generation,  the  glacial  mass  of  superstition  and  terrorism  had  been 
gradually  but  imperceptibly  receding  and  disappearing.  It  was  still  potent, 
but  in  an  inert  sort  of  way.  .  .  .  When  the  constitution  of  1780  was  framed, 
it  yielded  a  grudging  and  reluctant  consent  to  limited  concessions  of  non- 
conformity ;  but  it  was  then  so  potent  and  so  rife  that  the  framer  of  the 
instrument  abandoned  in  despair  the  attempt  to  put  his  idea  of  religious 
freedom  in  any  form  of  words  likely  to  prove  acceptable  to  those  who  were 
to  pass  upon  his  work  (  Works  of  yohn  Adams \  iv.,  p.  222,  n.).    .     .    . 

The  phase  of  political  activity  has  already  been  alluded  to.  In  that  field 
Massachusetts  was  always  at  home — it  enjoyed  an  easy  American  supremacy 
which  even  its  ice  age  did  not  wholly  arrest.  And  now,  when  the  struggle 
against  superstition  had  drawn  to  a  close,  that  against  caste  came  again  to 
the  front,  with  Massachusetts  still  in  the  van.  Indeed,  on  this  issue,  in  1837 
as  in  1635,  the  proper  and  natural  place  for  the  Puritan  commonwealth  was 
in  the  van.     It  stood  there  ;  indeed  it  was  the  van. 

The  record,  opened  at  Plymouth  in  December,  1620,  closed  as  a  distinct 
and  independent  record  in  April,  1865.  That  long  struggle  for  the  recog- 
nition of  the  equality  of  man  before  the  law,  of  which  Massachusetts  was  the 
peculiar  and  acknowledged  champion,  came  to  its  close  at  Appomattox. 

Frank  and  novel,  indeed,  are  these  confessions  of  Puritan  shortcom- 
ing from  a  scion  of  one  of  New  England's  most  noted  families.  While 
one  cannot  but  feel  that  Mr.  Adams  has  rendered  an  inestimable  service  to 
the  cause  of  truth,  it  is  yet  to  be  questioned  whether  in  his  concluding 
sentences  he  does  not  himself  fall  under  the  filio-pietistic  influence  when 
speaking  of  the  Massachusetts  monopoly  of  the  principles  of  civil  liberty. 
Claiming  descent  from  John  Cotton,  as  Mr.  Adams  does,  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  inquiry  arises  whether  the  fact  of  that  descent,  and  the  desire  to 
condone  the  bigotry  of  that  ancestor,  may  not  have  led  him  to  take  a  broader 
and  more  philosophical  survey  of  the  subject  of  religious  liberty  in  New 
England  than  has  been  taken  by  any  of  his  predecessors.  It  may  also  be 
questioned  whether  his  estimate  as  to  the  perniciousness  of  the  early  Puritan 


gS  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

ecclesiastical  system  may  not  have  been  reached  through  a  realization  of 
the  inadequacy  of  any  other  conclusion  to  rightly  explain  the  Jesuitical 
polity  developed  and  practised  by  that  Puritan  ancestor.  John  Cotton  was 
a  man  who  argued  that,  "  to  excommunicate  an  Heretick,  is  not  to  perse- 
cute ;  that  is,  it  is  not  to  punish  an  innocent,  but  a  culpable  and  damnable 
person,  and  that  not  for  conscience,  but  for  persisting  in  error  against  light 
of  conscience,  whereof  it  hath  been  convinced."  " 

Would  that  some  equally  worthy  descendant  of  John  Winthrop  or  Ed- 
mund Andros  might  give  us  a  like  demagnetized  and  impartial  account  of 
the  history  of  civil  liberty  in  Massachusetts. 

Lacking  this,  we  have,  however,  from  an  outside  source,  a  very  clear 
and  forceful  criticism  of  those  portions  of  Mr.  Adams's  addresses  which 
partake  of  tendencies  the  opposite  of  the  liberal  ones  just  indicated.  This 
criticism  is  to  be  found  in  Oliver  Perry  Temple's  little  volume  on  The 
Covenanter,  Cavalier,  and  Puritan™  and  is  as  follows  : 

The  truth  is,  from  the  beginning  "  caste  "  was  in  higher  favor  and  more 
regarded  in  this  [Massachusetts]  than  in  any  of  the  Colonies,  except  possibly 
in  Virginia.  The  distinction  between  the  "  better  class  " — those  "  above  the 
ordinary  degree  " — and  those  of  "  mean  condition,"  was  expressly  pointed 
out  and  declared  by  the  General  Court  in  165 1.  Under  the  law  enacted  by 
it,  regulating  the  kind  of  dress  to  be  worn,  and  other  things,  magistrates, 
civil  and  military  officers,  persons  of  education  and  employment  "  above  the 
ordinary  degree,"  those  who  were  worth  two  hundred  pounds,  and  those 
whose  estates  had  been  considerable,  but  had  decayed, — all  those  in  a  word 
called  the  better  class,  were  exempt  from  the  operation  of  these  sumptuary 
laws.  But  the  court  declared  most  earnestly,  almost  pathetically,  its  "  utter 
detestation  and  dislike  that  men  or  women  of  mean  condition,  educations, 
and  callings,  should  take  upon  them  the  garbe  of  gentlemen,  by  the  wearing 
of  gold  or  silver  lace,  or  buttons  or  poynts  at  their  knees,  to  walke  in  great 
bootes  ;  or  women  of  the  same  ranke  to  weare  silk  or  tiffany  hoodes  or 
scarfes,  which,  though  allowable  to  persons  of  greater  estates,  or  more  lib- 
eral education,  yet  we  cannot  but  judge  it  intolerable  in  persons  of  such  like 
condition."     (Bryant's  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  ii.,  63.) 

Most  reluctantly  do  I  attempt  to  take  from  "  Puritan  Massachusetts" 
any  of  the  honors  she  so  gracefully  and  complacently  wears,  won  in  the  long 
contest  over  the  abolition  of  slavery,  but  the  truth  of  history  compels  my 
doing  so.  That  State  was  not  "  in  the  van  "  ;  much  less  "  was  she  the  van  " 
on  that  question  until  after  1836.  The  leading  men  of  Virginia  condemned 
the  institution  of  slavery  both  before  and  immediately  after  the  Revolution. 
In  1804  a  number  of  Baptist  ministers  in  Kentucky  started  a  crusade 
against  the  institution,  which  resulted  in  a  hot  contest  in  the  denomination, 
and  the  organization  of  the  "  Baptist  Licking  Locust  Association  Friends  of 
Humanity."  In  1806  Charles  Osborne  began  to  preach  "immediate  eman- 
cipation "  in  Tennessee.  Ten  years  later  he  started  a  paper  in  Ohio,  called 
the  Philanthropist,  devoted  to  the  general  cause  of  humanity.  In  1822  a 
paper  was  started  at  Shelbyville  (no  State  mentioned,  probably  Kentucky), 
called  the  Abolition  Intelligencer. 

Osborne  probably  went  from  Jefferson  County,  eastern  Tennessee,  the 


American  Ideals  99 

same  county  from  which  John  Rankin,*  the  noted  abolitionist,  went,  since 
his  was  the  first  name  on  the  roll  of  the  "  Lost  Creek  Manumission  Society" 
of  that  county  in  1815. 

Twenty  years  before  Massachusetts  took  her  stand  at  all  on  this  subject, 
there  were  eighteen  manumission,  or  emancipation,  societies  in  eastern  Ten- 
nessee, organized  by  the  Covenanters,  the  Methodists,  and  the  Quakers  of 
that  region,  which  held  regular  meetings  for  a  number  of  years  in  the  inter- 
est of  emancipation  or  abolitionism.  In  1822  there  were  five  or  six  abolition 
societies  in  Kentucky.  In  181 9  the  first  distinctively  emancipation  paper  in 
the  United  States  was  published  in  Jonesborough,  eastern  Tennessee,  by 
Elihu  Embree,  a  Quaker,  called  the  Manumission  Intelligencer.  In  1821 
Benjamin  Lundy  purchased  this  paper,  and  published  it  for  two  years  in 
Greenville,  East  Tennessee,  under  the  title  of  the  Genius  of  Universal  Eman- 
cipation. Lundy  was  merely  the  successor  of  Embree.  At  and  previous 
to  this  time,  the  Methodist  Church  in  Tennessee,  at  its  conferences,  was 
making  it  hot  for  its  members  who  held  or  who  bought  or  sold  slaves,  by 
silencing  or  expelling  them. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  late  as  1835,  William  Lloyd  Garrison  was  mobbed 
in  the  streets  of  Boston,  because  he  was  an  abolitionist.  About  1827,  Ben- 
jamin Lundy  could  not  find  an  abolitionist  in  that  city.  In  1826,  of  the 
one  hundred  and  forty-three  emancipation  societies  in  the  United  States, 
one  hundred  and  three  were  in  the  South,  and  not  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  in 
Massachusetts.  John  Rankin,  the  noted  abolitionist  of  Ohio,  who  went 
from  East  Tennessee  in  1815  or  1816, — a  Covenanter  and  from  a  Covenanter 
neighborhood, — declared  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  that  it  was  safer  in  1816 
to  1820  to  make  abolition  speeches  in  Tennessee  or  Kentucky  than  it  was  in 
the  North. 

In  1833,  the  poet  Whittier  and  George  Thompson,  the  celebrated  Eng- 
lish abolitionist,  were  mobbed  and  narrowly  escaped  with  their  lives,  in  at- 
tempting to  make  abolition  speeches  in  one  of  the  towns  of  Massachusetts.! 

In  1833,  Governor  Everett,  of  Massachusetts,  suggested  the  expediency 
of  prosecuting  abolitionists.  Mr.  Garrison  said,  in  the  first  number  of  the 
Liberator,  that  he  found  in  the  North  "  contempt  more  bitter,  prejudice 
more  stubborn,  and  apathy  more  frozen  than  among  slave-owners  them- 
selves." It  was  estimated,  in  1828,  that  in  Tennessee  three-fifths  of  the 
people  were  favorably  disposed  toward  the  principle  of  emancipation. 

In  the  Constitutional  convention  of  Tennessee,  in  1834,  a  proposition 
was  made  to  emancipate  the  slaves  of  the  State,  and  it  received  over  one- 
third  of  the  votes  of  the  members,  and  the  favorable  indorsement  of  all, 
those  opposing  it  approving  the  principle,  but  insisting  that  the  time  for 
that  step  had  not  yet  arrived. 

It  is  well  known  that  Henry  Clay  commenced  his  political  career  in 
Kentucky  by  an  effort  to  secure  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  that 
State.  The  fact  is,  the  emancipation  movement  seems  to  have  gotten  its 
first  start  and  strength  in  Virginia,  Tennessee,  and  Kentucky,  though  the 
Quakers  of  Pennsylvania  made  feeble  efforts  in  that  direction  before  the 
Revolution.18 

It  thus  appears  that  Massachusetts  was  a  long  way  behind  even  some  of 

♦John  Rankin's  father  was  a  Pennsylvanian  and  was  in  the  Revolutionary  War.  John 
was  the  founder  of  the  Free  Presbyterian  Church  and  organized  the  first  "underground 
railway  "  in  Ohio. 

f  This  is  likewise  true  of  Benjamin  Lundy,  who  first  interested  Garrison  in  abolition. 


ioo  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

the  slave  States  in  the  struggle  for  "man's  equality  before  the  law."     It  was 
not  until  1836  that  she  led  in  the  abolition  movement. 

From  the  very  beginning,  as  we  have  seen,  there  has  always  been  a  ten- 
dency toward  caste  in  Massachusetts.  Her  people  were  Englishmen.  They 
had  English  ideas.  Ideas  of  caste  were  a  part  of  their  heritage.  I  have  al- 
ready quoted  one  of  their  early  statutes  showing  that  a  clear  distinction  was 
drawn  between  the  "  better  class,"  those  "  above  the  ordinary  degree,"  and 
those  of  "  mean  condition."  Those  of  the  latter  class  were  not  to  wear  the 
same  clothing  that  the  former  did.     .     .     . 

I  refer  to  one  more  fact  on  this  subject.  In  the  discussion  over  the  for- 
mation of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  during  the  twelve  years  following 
its  adoption,  the  Federal  and  the  Anti-Federal  parties  were  formed  and  came 
into  being  ;  the  one,  thoroughly  democratic,  was  led  by  Mr.  Jefferson  ;  the 
other,  led  by  Mr.  Hamilton  and  John  Adams,  leaned  toward  a  strong  cen- 
tral government.  Massachusetts  and  New  England,  following  the  lead  of 
Mr.  Adams,  ranged  themselves  on  the  Federal  side,  while  the  Southern 
States  followed  the  leadership  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  Massachusetts  became  a 
Federal  State,  while  Virginia  became  thoroughly  Democratic. 

As  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  discussions  in  the  last  four  chapters,  and 
the  underlying  thought  running  through  them  all,  it  is  affirmed  as  almost  an 
undeniable  proposition  that  the  advanced  theories  and  the  liberal  ideas,  in 
reference  to  both  political  and  religious  liberty,  which,  like  threads  of  gold, 
were  woven  into  the  institutions  of  the  country  and  the  life  of  the  people, 
and  which  gave  them  their  chief  glory,  were  of  Covenanter,  and  not  of  Puri- 
tan or  Cavalier,  origin.  This  is  so  manifestly  true  as  to  religious  liberty 
that  the  reader  has  only  to  recall  the  facts  already  given  in  order  to  com- 
mand his  ready  assent  to  the  truth  of  the  proposition.  For  it  will  be  re- 
membered that  until  after  the  coming  of  the  Covenanters  there  was  not  one 
gleam  of  light  in  all  the  dreary  regions  dominated  by  the  Puritans  and  the 
Cavaliers.  The  despotism  and  the  gloom  of  intolerance  reigned  supreme. 
A  narrow  bigotry  and  superstition  cast  their  blighting  shadows  over  the 
minds  of  men.  Notwithstanding  the  bold  and  never-ceasing  teachings  of 
the  Covenanters,  from  the  day  of  their  arrival  in  the  country  until  they  had 
aroused  the  storm  of  the  Revolution,  so  difficult  was  it  to  induce  the  Puri- 
tans and  the  Cavaliers  to  relax  their  deadly  grasp  on  the  consciences  of 
men  that  eleven  years  passed  away  after  the  inauguration  of  hostilities  in 
the  colonies  before  universal  religious  liberty  prevailed  in  the  Cavalier 
State,  and  nearly  sixty  years  before  complete  religious  emancipation  was  ac- 
complished in  Massachusetts. 

The  struggles  for  political  and  personal  liberty  are  always  easily  remem- 
bered. The  glare  and  the  thunders  of  war  are  never  forgotten.  But  the 
quiet,  the  persistent,  and  the  courageous  warfare  waged  by  the  Covenant- 
ers, everywhere  and  at  all  times,  for  the  right  of  conscience,  while  it  was 
effecting  a  revolution  as  important  for  the  happiness  of  mankind  as  the 
great  one  settled  by  arms,  did  not  appeal  to  the  senses  and  the  imagi- 
nation of  men,  and  hence  it  has  been  but  little  noted  by  speakers  or  by 
historians. 

To  prove  the  correctness  of  the  other  branch  of  my  summary,  or  propo- 
sition, in  reference  to  political  freedom,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the 
facts  already  given,  to  show  the  deeply  rooted  ideas  of  caste  and  social  dis- 
tinction existing  in  the  minds  of  the  ruling  classes,  and  in  the  society  of 
Virginia  and  Massachusetts,  previous  to  and  at  the  date  of  the  Revolution. 
These  caste  ideas  and  social  distinctions  did  not  prevent  those  favorable  to 


American  Ideals  101 

Independence  from  doing  their  duty  in  the  great  contest  of  arms,  but  they 
did  have  a  most  important  influence  in  shaping  the  institutions  of  the 
country,  and  in  giving  tone  and  coloring  to  its  thought  afterward.  And  in 
this  second  stage  of  the  Revolution,  these  Covenanters,  dwelling  in  large 
numbers  in  all  the  States  south  of  New  England,  with  their  liberal  and  ad- 
vanced ideas,  learned  in  their  bitter  experience  of  nearly  two  centuries,  and 
with  their  creed  of  republicanism,  were  ready  to  infuse  their  spirit  and  in- 
ject their  ideas  of  equality  into  the  constitutions,  the  institutions,  and  into 
the  life  of  that  vast  region.  Under  this  influence  even  aristocratic  Cavalier 
Virginia  became,  as  we  have  seen,  the  most  democratic  of  all  the  States. 
Under  this  influence,  also,  the  constitution  of  Tennessee  was  framed, 
which  was  pronounced  by  Mr.  Jefferson  the  most  republican  in  its  spirit  of 
all  the  American  constitutions.  And  this  same  spirit  pervaded  the  institu- 
tions of  all  the  Southern  States,  excepting  South  Carolina.  I  do  not  with- 
hold from  Mr.  Jefferson  the  high  meed  of  praise  he  so  richly  merits  for  his 
magnificent  work  in  behalf  of  liberal  ideas  and  republican  institutions  in 
Virginia.  But  Mr.  Jefferson  was  always  a  Covenanter  in  his  opinions  as  to 
political  and  religious  liberty.,,  Besides  this,  we  have  seen  that  he  would 
have  failed  in  his  great  reforms,  except  for  the  powerful  aid  he  received 
from  the  Covenanters. 

Nor  do  I  ignore  the  teachings  of  Roger  Williams,  nor  the  liberal  ideas  of 
the  Dutch  of  New  York,  nor  the  conservative  opinions  of  the  Quakers,  nor 
the  tolerant  spirit  of  the  Catholics  of  Maryland,  in  accomplishing  these  great 
results,  but  these  were  insignificant  in  their  influence  in  comparison  with  the 
widely  extended  power  of  the  great  Covenanter  race. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  VII. 

1  See  Alexander  Johnston's  "  History  of  Parties,"  in  Nar.  and  Crit.  History  of  America, 
vol.  vii.,  and  Bryant's  History  of  the  United  States.  "  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  would  have  a 
poor  time  of  it  if  they  must  rely  on  a  free  contribution  of  the  people  for  their  maintenance. 
.  .  .  The  laws  of  the  province  [Massachusetts]  having  had  the  royal  approbation  to  ratify 
them, they  are  the  king's  laws.  By  these  laws  it  is  enacted  that  there  shall  be  public  worship  of 
God  in  every  plantation  ;  that  the  person  elected  by  the  majority  of  inhabitants  to  be  so,  shall 
be  looked  upon  as  the  minister  of  the  place  ;  and  that  the  salary  for  him,  which  they  shall 
agree  upon,  shall  be  levied  by  a  rate  upon  all  the  inhabitants.  In  consequence  of  this,  the 
minister  thus  chosen  by  the  people  is  (not  only  Christ's,  but  also)  in  reality  the  king's  min- 
ister, and  the  salary  raised  for  him  is  raised  in  the  king's  name,  and  is  the  king's  allowance 
unto  him." — Cotton  Mather,  Ratio  Disciplines  ;  or,  Faithful  Account  of  the  Discipline  Pro- 
fessed and  Practised  in  the  Churches  of  New  England,  p.  20. 

2  "  The  constancy  of  the  Quakers  under  their  sufferings  begot  a  pity  and  esteem  for  their 
persons,  and  an  approbation  of  their  doctrines  ;  their  proselytes  increased  ;  the  Quakers 
returned  as  fast  as  they  were  banished  ;  and  the  fury  of  the  ruling  party  was  raised  to  such 
a  height  that  they  proceeded  to  the  most  sanguinary  extremities.  Upon  the  law  they  had 
made,  they  seized  at  different  times  upon  five  of  those  who  had  returned  from  banishment, 
condemned,  and  hanged  them.  It  is  unknown  how  far  their  madness  had  extended,  if  an 
order  from  the  King  and  Council  in  England  about  the  year  166 1  had  not  interposed  to  re- 
strain them. 

"  It  is  a  task  not  very  agreeable  to  insist  upon  such  matters  ;  but,  in  reality,  things  of  this 
nature  form  the  greatest  part  of  the  history  of  New  England,  for  a  long  time.  They  per- 
secuted the  Anabaptists,  who  were  no  inconsiderable  body  amongst  them,  with  almost  an  equal 
severity.     In  short,  this  people,  who  in  England  could  not  bear  being  chastised  with  rods, 


102  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

had  no  sooner  got  free  from  their  fetters  than  they  scourged  their  fellow  refugees  with  scor- 
pions ;  though  the  absurdity,  as  well  as  the  injustice  of  such  a  proceeding  in  them,  might 
stare  them  in  the  face." — Burke,  European  Settlements  in  America,  vol.  ii.,  p.  151. 

3  Most  of  the  States  [at  the  time  of  Jefferson's  inauguration]  had  had  property  qualifica- 
tions as  limitations  either  on  the  right  of  suffrage  or  on  the  composition  of  the  legislature. 
The  Republican  policy  had  been  to  remove  such  limitations  in  the  States  which  they  con- 
trolled, and  to  diminish  the  time  of  residence  required  for  naturalization.  The  bulk  of  the 
new  voters,  therefore,  went  to  them,  and  they  were  continually  making  their  hold  stronger 
on  the  States  which  had  come  under  their  control.  New  England  and  Delaware  remained 
Federalist,  and  Maryland  was  doubtful ;  the  other  States  could  be  counted  on  almost  cer- 
tainly as  Republican.  Under  the  New  England  system,  governmental  powers  were  prac- 
tically divided  among  a  multitude  of  little  town  republics  ;  and  restriction  on  the  right  of 
suffrage,  intrenched  in  these  towns,  had  to  be  conquered  in  a  thousand  successive  strong- 
holds. The  towns,  too,  sufficient  to  themselves,  cared  little  for  the  exclusion  from 
national  life  involved  in  their  system  ;  and  for  nearly  twenty  years  New  England  was 
excommunicated  from  national  politics.  It  was  not  until  the  rise  of  manufactures  and  of 
dissenting  sects  had  reinforced  continuous  agitation  that  the  Republican  revolution  pene- 
trated New  England  and  overcame  the  tenacious  resistance  of  her  people. —  Alexander  John- 
ston, "  History  of  Parties,"  in  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  vol.  vii.,  p.  272. 

4  "  Knox,  under  God,  made  the  Scotch  and  the  Scotch-Irish.    .    .    . 

"Observe  well,  the  influence  of  this  prophetic  patriot  was  felt  most  at  St.  Andrews, 
through  the  long  Strathclyde,  in  the  districts  of  Ayr,  Dumfries,  and  Galloway,  the  Lothians 
and  Renfrew.  There  exactly  clustered  the  homes  which  thrilled  to  the  herald  voice  of 
Patrick  Hamilton  ;  there  were  the  homes  which  drank  in  the  strong  wine  of  Knox  ;  there 
were  the  homes  of  tenacious  memories  and  earnest  fireside  talk  ;  there  were  the  homes 
which  sent  forth  once  and  again  the  calm,  shrewd,  iron-nerved  patriots  who  spurned  as 
devil's  lie  the  doctrine  of  '  passive  resistance  ' ;  and  there  —  mark  it  well — were  the  homes 
that  sent  their  best  and  bravest  to  fill  and  change  Ulster  ;  thence  came  in  turn  the  Scotch- 
Irish  of  the  Eaglewing ;  thence  came  the  settlers  of  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  the  Carolinas, 
Tennessee,  and  Kentucky  ;  and  the  sons  of  these  men  blush  not  as  they  stand  beside  the 
children  of  the  Mayflower  or  the  children  of  the  Bartholomew  martyrs.  I  know  whereof 
I  affirm.  My  peculiar  education  and  somewhat  singular  work  planted  me,  American-born, 
in  the  very  heart  of  these  old  ancestral  scenes  ;  and  from  parishioners  who  held  with  death- 
less grip  the  very  words  of  Peden,  Welsh,  and  Cameron,  from  hoary-headed  witnesses  in  the 
Route  of  Antrim  and  on  the  hills  of  Down,  have  I  often  heard  of  the  lads  who  went  out  to 
bleed  at  Valley  Forge, —  to  die  as  victors  on  King's  Mountain, —  and  stand  in  the  silent 
triumph  of  Yorktown.     We  have  more  to  thank  Knox  for  than  is  commonly  told  to-day. 

"  Here  we  reach  our  Welshes  and  Witherspoons,  our  Tennents  and  Taylors,  our  Calhouns 
and  Clarks,  our  Cunninghams  and  Caldwells,  our  Pollocks,  Polks,  and  Pattersons,  our  Scotts 
and  Grays  and  Kennedys,  our  Reynoldses  and  Robinsons,  our  McCooks,  McHenrys,  McPher- 
sons,  and  McDowells. 

"  But  the  man  behind  is  Knox.  Would  you  see  his  monument  ?  Look  around.  Yes  : 
To  this,  our  own  land,  more  than  any  other,  I  am  convinced  must  we  look  for  the  fullest 
outcome  and  the  yet  all  unspent  force  of  this  more  than  royal  leader,  this  masterful  and 
moulding  soul.  .  .  .  Carlyle  has  said  :  '  Scotch  literature  and  thought,  Scotch  industry  ; 
James  Watt,  David  Hume,  Walter  Scott,  Robert  Burns.  I  find  Knox  and  the  Reforma- 
tion at  the  heart's  core  of  every  one  of  those  persons  and  phenomena ;  I  find  that  without 
Knox  and  the  Reformation,  they  would  not  have  been.  Or  what  of  Scotland  ? '  Yea,  verily  ; 
no  Knox,  no  Watt,  no  Burns,  no  Scotland,  as  we  know  and  love  and  thank  God  for :  And 
must  we  not  say  no  men  of  the  Covenant  ;  no  men  of  Antrim  and  Down,  of  Derry  and 
Enniskillen  ;  no  men  of  the  Cumberland  valleys  ;  no  men  of  the  Virginian  hills  ;  no  men  of 
the  Ohio  stretch,  of  the  Georgian  glades  and  the  Tennessee  Ridge ;  no  rally  at  Scone ;  no 


American  Ideals 


103 


thunders  in  St.  Giles  ;  no  testimony  from  Philadelphian  Synod ;  no  Mecklenburg  declara- 
tion ;  no  memorial  from  Hanover  Presbytery ;  no  Tennent  stirring  the  Carolinas ;  no 
Craighead  sowing  the  seeds  of  the  coming  revolution  ;  no  Witherspoon  pleading  for  the 
signing  of  our  great  charter  ;  and  no  such  declaration  and  no  such  constitution  as  are  ours, 
—  the  great  Tilghman  himself  being  witness  in  these  clear  words,  never  by  us  to  be  let  die  : 
'  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  were  greatly  indebted  to  the  standards 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  in  modelling  that  admirable  document.' —  Rev.  John 
S.  Mcintosh,  Proceedings  Scotch-Irish  Society  of  America,  vol.  i.,  pp.  199-201. 

"  In  the  history  of  Scotland,  too,  I  can  find  properly  but  one  epoch  :  we  may  say,  it 
contains  nothing  of  world-wide  interest  at  all  but  this  Reformation  by  Knox.  A  poor,  bar- 
ren country,  full  of  continual  broils,  dissensions,  massacrings  ;  a  people  in  the  last  state  of 
rudeness  and  destitution,  little  better  perhaps  than  Ireland  at  this  day.  Hungry,  fierce  bar- 
ons, 'not  so  much  as  able  to  form  any  arrangement  with  each  other  how  to  divide  what  they 
fleeced  from  these  poor  drudges  ;  but  obliged,  as  the  Columbian  Republics  are  at  this  day,  to 
make  of  every  alteration  a  revolution  ;  no  way  of  changing  a  ministry  but  by  hanging  the 
old  ministers  on  gibbets :  this  is  a  historical  spectacle  of  no  very  singular  significance : 
4  Bravery '  enough,  I  doubt  not ;  fierce  fighting  in  abundance  :  but  not  braver  or  fiercer 
than  that  of  their  old  Scandinavian  Sea-king  ancestors  ;  whose  exploits  we  have  not  found 
worth  dwelling  on  !  It  is  a  country  as  yet  without  a  soul  :  nothing  developed  in  it  but  what 
is  rude,  external,  semi-animal.  And  now  at  the  Reformation,  the  internal  life  is  kindled,  as 
it  were,  under  the  ribs  of  this  outward  material  death.  A  cause,  the  noblest  of  causes,  kindles 
itself,  like  a  beacon  set  on  high  ;  high  as  Heaven,  yet  attainable  from  Earth  ; — whereby  the 
meanest  man  becomes  not  a  Citizen  only,  but  a  Member  of  Christ's  visible  Church  ;  a  ver- 
itable Hero,  if  he  prove  a  true  man  ! 

"This  that  Knox  did  for  his  nation,  I  say,  we  may  really  call  a  resurrection  as  from 
death.  It  was  not  a  smooth  business  ;  but  it  was  welcome,  surely,  and  cheap  at  that  price, 
had  it  been  far  rougher.  On  the  whole,  cheap  at  any  price  ; — as  life  is.  The  people  began 
to  live:  they  needed  first  of  all  to  do  that,  at  what  cost  and  costs  soever.  Scotch  Literature 
and  Thought,  Scotch  Industry  ;  James  Watt,  David  Hume,  Walter  Scott,  Robert  Burns  :  I 
find  Knox  and  the  Reformation  acting  in  the  heart's  core  of  every  one  of  these  persons  and 
phenomena  ;  I  find  that  without  the  Reformation  they  would  not  have  been." — Thomas 
Carlyle,  On  Heroes  and  Hero  Worship,  iv. 

6  So  much  for  the  early  clergy.  As  to  the  magistrates,  in  the  mouths  of  James  I.  and 
Charles  I.,  of  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  or  Louis  XIV.  of  France,  the  words  :  "We  see  not  that 
any  should  have  authority  to  set  up  any  other  exercises  besides  what  authority  had  already 
set  up," — these  words  in  those  mouths  would  have  had  a  familiar  as  well  as  an  ominous 
sound.  To  certain  of  those  who  listened  to  them,  they  must  have  had  a  sound  no  less 
ominous  when  uttered  by  Governor  John  Winthrop  in  the  Cambridge  meeting-house  on  the 
17th  of  November,  1637.  In  them  was  definitely  formulated  and  clearly  announced  the 
policy  thereafter  to  be  pursued  in  Massachusetts.  It  was  thereafter  pursued  in  Massachusetts. 
John  Winthrop,  John  Endicott,  and  Thomas  Dudley  were  all  English  Puritans.  As  such 
they  had  sought  refuge  from  authority  in  Massachusetts.  On  what  ground  can  the  impartial 
historian  withhold  from  them  the  judgment  he  visits  on  James  and  Philip  and  Charles  and 
Louis  ?  The  fact  would  seem  to  be  that  the  position  of  the  latter  was  logical  though  cruel ; 
while  the  position  of  the  former  was  cruel  and  illogical. —  C.  F.  Adams,  Massachusetts  :  Its 
Historians  and  Its  History,  p.  38. 

6  See  letter  of  Col.  William  Byrd,  written  from  Virginia  to  Lord  Egmont,  July  12,  1730, 
printed  in  American  Historical  Review  for  October,  1895,  vol.  i.,  p.  88  ;  also,  W.  E.  B. 
DuBois,  The  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave  -Trade  to  the  United  States  of  America, 
1638-1870,  chapter  iv.  {Harvard  Historical  Studies,  vol.  i.). 

'Bancroft,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  276-279,  549,  550;  vol.  iii.,  pp.  410-413;  vol.  iv.,  p.  34;  vol. 
v.,  p,  329. 


104  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

"  I  have  found  no  mention  of  negroes  in  the  colony  until  about  1650.  The  first  brought 
here  as  slaves  were  in  a  Dutch  ship  ;  after  which  the  English  commenced  the  trade,  and  con- 
tinued it  until  the  Revolutionary  War.  That  suspended,  ipso  facto,  their  further  importation 
for  the  present,  and  the  business  of  the  war  pressing  constantly  on  the  Legislature,  this  sub- 
ject was  not  acted  on  finally  until  the  year  '78,  when  I  brought  in  a  bill  to  prevent  their 
further  importation.  This  passed  without  opposition,  and  stopped  the  increase  of  the  evil 
by  importation,  leaving  to  future  efforts  its  final  eradication.  In  1769  I  became  a  member 
of  the  Legislature  by  the  choice  of  the  county  in  which  I  lived,  and  so  continued  until  it  was 
closed  by  the  Revolution.  I  made  one  effort  in  that  body  for  the  permission  of  the  emanci- 
pation of  slaves,  which  was  rejected ;  and  indeed,  during  the  regal  government  nothing 
liberal  could  expect  success." — Jefferson's  Autobiography,  pp.  3,  38. 

8  "  In  1681,  William  Penn  received  from  Charles  II.  a  grant  of  the  Province  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, including  what  is  now  the  State  of  Delaware.  Penn's  mother  was  a  Dutch  woman 
from  Rotterdam,  and  one  very  prominent  in  her  generation.  His  peculiar  religious  ideas, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  were  derived  from  his  mother's  country.  He  travelled  extensively 
in  Holland,  and  spoke  the  language  so  well  that  he  preached  to  the  Dutch  Quakers  in  their 
native  tongue.  Finally,  before  coming  to  America,  he  took  up  his  residence  for  some  time 
at  Emden,  in  democratic  East  Friesland.  Under  all  these  influences,  he  sat  down  in  1682, 
and  prepared  a  "  Frame  of  Government  "  for  his  dominion,  and  a  "  Code  of  Laws,"  which 
was  afterwards  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly.  In  their  preparation  he  was  assisted  by 
Algernon  Sidney,  who  had  lived  many  years  upon  the  Continent,  who  was  perfectly  familiar 
with  the  institutions  of  the  Netherland  Republic  and  on  most  intimate  terms  with  its  leading 
statesmen.  How  much  they  borrowed  from  Holland  we  shall  see  hereafter.  [The  registra- 
tion of  land  titles ;  that  all  prisons  should  be  workhouses  for  felons,  vagrants,  etc. ,  and 
should  be  free  to  others  as  to  fees,  board,  and  lodgings  ;  that  landed  estate  should  be  liable 
for  a  descendant's  debt  (one-third  in  cases  where  issue  was  left);  that  one-third  the  estate  of 
a  murderer  passed  to  the  next  of  kin  of  his  victim  ;  that  all  children  in  the  province  over  the 
age  of  twelve  were  to  be  taught  a  trade  ;  religious  toleration.] 

"  With  Pennsylvania,  we  reach  the  most  southern  point  to  which  a  Dutch  influence  upon 
the  early  settlers  of  America  can  be  traced,  as  we  also  reach  the  limit  of  the  colonies  whose 
institutions,  except  that  of  slavery,  have  affected  the  American  Commonwealth.  Virginia 
alone  contributed  an  idea,  that  of  the  natural  equality  of  man  ;  but  this  was  borrowed  by  her 
statesmen  from  the  Roman  law. 

"One  fact  in  connection  with  the  Southern  colonies,  which  in  early  days  were  almost 
wholly  under  an  English  influence,  is  very  significant.  In  1669,  John  Locke,  with  the  aid 
of  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  prepared  a  frame  of  government  for  Carolina.  None  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  constitution,  except  that  for  recording  deeds  and  mortgages,  were  borrowed 
from  Holland,  and  not  one  of  them,  with  this  exception,  has  found  a  permanent  place  among 
American  Institutions.  The  Puritans  in  Holland,  England,  and  America,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  418- 
420  (by  permission  of  Messrs.  Harper  &  Brothers). 

9  This  Presbytery  furnished  10,000  names  to  a  petition,  which  was  the  force  back  of 
Jefferson's  bill  for  religious  freedom  (1785),  an  enactment  of  which  he  was  so  proud  that  he 
had  a  statement  of  the  fact  that  he  was  its  author  engraved  upon  his  tombstone.  The  peti- 
tion is  printed  herein  as  Appendix  F. 

10  The  Puritan  in  Holland,  England,  and  A m erica,  vol.  ii.,  p.  502. 

11  Cotton's  "  Answer  to  Williams,"  Narragansett  Club  Publications,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  48-49  ; 
also  vol.  ii.,  p.  27. 

12  See  Appendix  L  (Tithes  in  Ulster.) 

13  The  first  printed  protest  in  America  against  slavery,  issued  by  Rev.  George  Keith,  a 
Scotch  Quaker,  October  13,  1693,  and  published  at  New  York  by  William  Bradford,  is  re- 
produced in  the  Pennsylvania  Magazine,  vol.  xiii.,  pp.  265-270. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  SCOTTISH  KIRK  AND  HUMAN  LIBERTY 

IT  may  seem  a  reiteration  of  the  words  of  Mr.  Henry  Thomas  Buckle  to 
say  that  the  history  of  Scotland  during  the  century  and  a  half  from  1550 
to  1700  is  almost  completely  merged  in  the  history  of  the  Scottish  Church.1 
He  who  would  form  a  just  conception  of  the  forces  in  operation  in  that 
country,  during  the  period  when  the  Middle  Ages  passed  away  and  the  mod- 
ern era  began,  must  study  them  chiefly  in  connection  with  their  bearing  on 
religion.  But  it  will  not  suffice  in  such  an  investigation  to  assume  that 
ecclesiasticism  means  religion.  In  his  elaborate  and,  in  some  respects,  highly 
philosophical  analysis  of  civilization  in  Scotland,2  it  seems  to  the  writer  that 
Mr.  Buckle  has  failed  to  reach  a  wholly  true  and  satisfactory  estimate  of 
Scottish  character,  and  that  in  just  so  far  as  he  has  neglected  to  discriminate 
in  this  regard.  It  is  true  he  approaches  the  subject  from  the  logical  English 
point  of  view.  Looking  upon  the  institution  of  the  Church  with  strictly  utili- 
tarian eyes,  he  fails  to  perceive  the  spiritual  life  of  its  people,  of  which  the 
Church  in  Scotland  may  in  all  seriousness  be  considered  merely  the  medium 
of  expression.  Long  accustomed  by  heredity,  training,  and  experience  to 
the  ecclesiastical  system  at  home,  which,  even  down  to  his  own  time,  was  wont 
to  administer  to  its  adherents  only  such  theological  pabulum  as  would  nour- 
ish doctrines  according  with  the  views  and  vices  of  its  reigning  head,  it  is  at 
least  not  surprising  that  the  great  mind  which  produced  the  Introduction  to 
the  History  of  Civilization  in  England  should  fail  to  strike  the  keynote  of 
that  part  of  its  theme  which  relates  to  North  Britain.  Nor  can  it  be  greatly 
wondered  at,  in  view  of  the  history  of  the  English  Church  establishment, 
that  one  of  its  native  observers  should  formulate  a  judgment  against  the  re- 
ligious system  of  the  neighboring  country,  finding  evidences  in  it  of  the  same 
spirit  which  dominated  the  Church  at  home,  and  denouncing  it  as  the  chief 
hindrance  to  its  country's  progress  ;  even  though  in  so  doing  his  gravest 
charge  against  the  Scottish  Church  is,  that  its  votaries  have  too  much  super- 
stitious reverence  for  God  and  the  Bible. 

It  will  ever  be  a  matter  of  regret  that  Mr.  Buckle  passed  away  just  as  he 
had  fairly  entered  upon  the  prosecution  of  his  great  work.  Still  more  is  it  to 
be  regretted  that  he  died  before  the  full  promulgation  of  our  modern  theories 
of  science  and  philosophy.  Had  he  lived  to-day  it  is  not  unlikely  that  his 
name  would  have  been  linked  with  that  of  Herbert  Spencer,  and  his  meth- 
ods in  historical  analysis  become  analogous  in  nature  and  merit  to  those  of 
that  master-thinker  in  matters  of  speculative  philosophy.  He  might,  in 
some  respects,  have  excelled  that  philosopher  had  he  enjoyed  the  fuller 
knowledge  of  the  present  day  instead  of  beginning  to  unfold  and  develop 
his  theories  of  the  philosophy  of  history  by  the  light  of  the  first  fitful  and 

105 


106  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

half-clouded  rays  of  forty  years  ago.  In  that  event,  being  a  student  of  history, 
it  is  possible  Buckle  might  have  taken  a  different  view  of  the  part  religion 
has  played  in  the  progress  of  the  world  from  that  expressed  in  his  work.  He 
might,  also,  afterwards  have  based  his  theory  as  to  Scottish  progress  or  retro- 
gression upon  a  different  premise  from  the  one  which  he  has  used.  Whether 
he  would  have  done  so  or  not,  however,  it  is  reasonably  certain  that,  if  living 
to-day,  he  would  have  seen  a  gradual  change  of  public  opinion  between  the 
years  1861  and  1900  as  to  the  correctness  of  his  original  hypothesis.  Nor 
could  he  have  failed  to  perceive  a  slowly  growing  conviction  on  the  part  of 
fair-minded  thinkers  —  a  conviction  that,  after  all,  some  of  the  chief  ele- 
ments of  human  progress  are  bound  up  with  the  phenomena  of  religion;  that 
human  nature  does  not  reach  its  highest  development  under  a  strictly  intel- 
lectual standard  of  morality  ;  that  human  reason  is  not  yet  sufficiently  acute 
to  classify,  much  less  to  harmonize,  the  incongruities  of  daily  life  and  expe- 
rience ;  in  short,  that  the  permanency  of  nations  and  the  endurance  of  the 
race  itself  depends  not  so  much  upon  intellectual  development  as  upon  the 
cultivation,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  of  those  restraining  influences  of 
religion  which  the  able  author  of  the  History  of  Civilization  in  England  has 
denominated  a  "  mixture  of  wonder  and  fear."  3 

Mr.  Buckle  has  failed  to  grasp  the  one  salient  point  necessary  for  a  right 
understanding  of  the  history  of  religion  and  its  effects  in  Scotland.  Or, 
noting  the  results  of  a  certain  moving  cause,  he  has  so  clouded  and  distorted 
the  evidences  of  its  presence  that  we  can  only  reach  a  true  apprehension  of 
the  cause  by  reasoning  backward  from  his  luminous  and  eulogistic  summary 
of  its  effect. 

This  cause  or  principle  of  action  in  the  Scottish  people,  the  workings  of 
which  have  been  so  beneficial  to  the  growth  of  human  liberty  and  to  man's 
progress,  this  divine  afflatus  which  Mr.  Buckle  seeks  to  stigmatize  by  the  use 
of  that  much-abused  term  "  superstition,"  and  to  classify  as  an  emanation 
from  the  caverns  of  darkness  and  ignorance,  is  the  principle  of  conscience. 
It  is  this  which  is  the  guiding  light  of  the  Scottish  soul  and  intellect.  With- 
out the  full  and  just  recognition  of  its  pervading  influence  among  that  people, 
it  were  vain  for  us  to  attempt  to  read  aright  the  lessons  of  Scottish  history  ; 
and  idle  to  seek  for  explanation  of  the  reasons  for  Scottish  pre-eminence,  of 
which  we  see  so  many  proofs  in  the  mental  and  material  subjugation  of  the 
earth. 

Probably  the  most  noticeable  instance  of  the  blindness  of  the  author  of 
the  History  of  Civilization  in  England  is  afforded  in  the  conclusion  reached 
by  him  in  the  following  passage4  : 

By  this  union  of  ignorance  with  danger,  the  clergy  had,  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  obtained  more  influence  in  Scotland  than  in  any  other  Euro- 
pean country,  Spain  alone  excepted.  And  as  the  power  of  the  nobles  had 
increased  quite  as  rapidly,  it  was  natural  that  the  Crown,  completely  over- 
shadowed by  the  great  barons,  should  turn  for  aid  to  the  Church.     During 


The  Scottish  Kirk  107 

the  fifteenth  century  and  part  of  the  sixteenth,  this  alliance  was  strictly  pre- 
served, and  the  political  history  of  Scotland  is  the  history  of  a  struggle  by 
the  kings  and  clergy  against  the  enormous  authority  of  the  nobles.  The  con- 
test, after  lasting  about  one  hundred  and  sixty  years,  was  brought  to  a  close 
in  1560,  by  the  triumph  of  the  aristocracy  and  the  overthrow  of  the  Church. 
With  such  force,  however,  had  the  circumstance  just  narrated  engrained 
superstition  into  the  Scotch  character,  that  the  spiritual  classes  quickly  ral- 
lied, and,  under  their  new  name  of  Protestants  they  became  as  formidable  as 
under  their  old  name  of  Catholics.  .  .  .  The  great  Protestant  movement 
which,  in  other  countries,  was  democratic,  was,  in  Scotland,  aristocratic.  We 
shall  also  see,  that,  in  Scotland,  the  Reformation,  not  being  the  work  of  the  peo- 
ple, has  never  produced  the  effects  which  might  have  been  expected  from  it,  and 
which  it  did  produce  in  England.  It  is,  indeed,  but  too  evident  that,  while  in 
England  Protestantism  has  diminished  superstition,  has  weakened  the 
clergy,  has  increased  toleration,  and,  in  a  word,  has  secured  the  triumph  of 
secular  interests  over  ecclesiastical  ones,  its  result  in  Scotland  has  been 
entirely  different  ;  and  that  in  that  country  the  Church,  changing  its  form 
without  altering  its  spirit,  not  only  cherished  its  ancient  pretensions  but  un- 
happily retained  its  ancient  power  ;  and  that,  although  that  power  is  now 
dwindling  away,  the  Scotch  preachers  still  exhibit,  whenever  they  dare,  an 
insolent  and  domineering  spirit,  which  shows  how  much  real  weakness  there 
yet  lurks  in  the  nation,  where  such  extravagant  claims  are  not  immediately 
silenced  by  the  voice  of  loud  and  general  ridicule. 

The  inadequacy  and  perniciousness  of  Mr.  Buckle's  conception  of  the 
real  bearing  of  religion  upon  the  national  life  and  character  of  the  Scottish 
people  cannot  perhaps  be  better  shown  than  by  such  a  disingenuous  state- 
ment as  this.  In  it  he  deliberately  ignored  the  facts,  and  falsified  and  reversed 
the  verdict  of  modern  history.  Messrs.  Freeman  and  Gardiner,  in  their 
sketch  of  English  history  contained  in  a  recent  edition  of  the  standard  ref- 
erence manual  of  Great  Britain,6  only  voice  the  opinion  of  all  honest  stu- 
dents when  they  say: 

The  English  Reformation  then,  including  in  that  name  the  merely  ecclesi- 
astical changes  of  Henry  as  well  as  the  more  strictly  religious  changes  of 
the  next  reign,  was  not  in  its  beginning  either  a  popular  or  a  theological 
movement.  In  this  it  differs  from  the  Reformation  in  many  continental 
countries,  and  especially  from  the  Reformation  in  the  northern  part  of 
Britain.  The  Scottish  Reformation  began  much  later  ;  but,  when  it  began, 
its  course  was  far  swifter  and  fiercer.  That  is  to  say,  it  was  essentially  popular 
and  essentially  theological.  The  result  was,  that,  of  all  the  nations  which 
threw  off  the  dominion  of  the  Roman  See,  England,  on  the  whole,  made  the 
least  change,  while  Scotland  undoubtedly  made  the  most.  (On  the  whole, 
because,  in  some  points  of  sacramental  doctrine  and  ritual,  the  Lutheran 
churches,  especially  in  Sweden,  have  made  less  change  than  the  Church  of 
England  has.  But  nowhere  did  the  general  ecclesiastical  system  go  on  with 
so  little  change  as  it  did  in  England.)  In  England  change  began  from 
above.  .  .  .  The  small  party  of  theological  reform  undoubtedly  welcomed 
the  changes  of  Henry,  as  being  likely  in  the  end  to  advance  their  own  cause  ; 
but  the  mass  of  the  nation  was  undoubtedly  favorable  to  Henry's  system  of 
Popery  without  the  Pope. 


108  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

On  the  same  subject,  Green  says8 : 

Knox  had  been  one  of  the  followers  of  Wishart ;  he  had  acted  as  pastor 
to  the  Protestants  who  after  Beaton's  murder  held  the  Castle  of  St.  Andrews, 
and  had  been  captured  with  them  by  a  French  force  in  the  summer  of  1547. 
The  Frenchmen  sent  the  heretics  to  the  galleys  ;  and  it  was  as  a  galley  slave 
in  one  of  their  vessels  that  Knox  next  saw  his  native  shores.  .  .  .  Re- 
leased at  the  opening  of  1549,  Knox  found  shelter  in  England,  where  he 
became  one  of  the  most  stirring  among  the  preachers  of  the  day,  and  was 
offered  a  bishopric  by  Northumberland.  Mary's  accession  drove  him  again 
to  France.  But  the  new  policy  of  the  Regent  now  opened  Scotland  to  the 
English  refugees,  and  it  was  as  one  of  these  that  Knox  returned  in  1555  to 
his  own  country.  Although  he  soon  withdrew  to  take  charge  of  the  English 
congregations  at  Frankfort  and  Geneva,  his  energy  had  already  given  a  deci- 
sive impulse  to  the  new  movement.  In  a  gathering  at  the  house  of  Lord 
Erskine  he  persuaded  the  assembly  to  "  refuse  all  society  with  idolatry,  and 
bind  themselves  to  the  uttermost  of  their  power  to  maintain  the  true  preach- 
ing of  the  Evangile,  as  God  should  offer  to  their  preachers  an  opportunity." 
The  confederacy  woke  anew  the  jealousy  of  the  government,  and  persecu- 
tion revived.  But  some  of  the  greatest  nobles  now  joined  the  reforming 
cause.  The  Earl  of  Morton,  the  head  of  the  house  of  Douglas,  the  Earl  of 
Argyle,  the  greatest  chieftain  of  the  west,  and  above  all  a  bastard  son  of  the 
late  King,  Lord  James  Stuart,  who  bore  as  yet  the  title  of  Prior  of  St. 
Andrews,  but  who  was  to  be  better  known  afterwards  as  the  Earl  of  Murray, 
placed  themselves  at  the  head  of  the  movement.  The  remonstrances  of 
Knox  from  his  exile  at  Geneva  stirred  them  to  interfere  in  behalf  of  the 
persecuted  Protestants  ;  and  at  the  close  of  1557  these  nobles  united  with 
the  rest  of  the  Protestant  leaders  in  an  engagement  which  became  memor- 
able as  the  first  among  those  Covenants  which  were  to  give  shape  and  color 
to  Scotch  religion. 

"  We,"  ran  this  solemn  bond,  "  perceiving  how  Satan  in  his  members,  the 
Antichrists  of  our  time,  cruelly  doth  rage,  seeking  to  overthrow  and  to 
destroy  the  Evangel  of  Christ,  and  His  Congregation,  ought  according  to 
our  bounden  duty  to  strive  in  our  Master's  cause  even  unto  the  death,  being 
certain  of  our  victory  in  Him.  The  which  our  duty  being  well  considered, 
we  do  promise  before  the  Majesty  of  God  and  his  Congregation  that  we,  by 
His  grace,  shall  with  all  diligence  continually  apply  our  whole  power,  sub- 
stance, and  our  very  lives  to  maintain,  set  forward,  and  establish  the  most 
blessed  Word  of  God  and  His  Congregation,  and  shall  labor  at  our  possi- 
bility to  have  faithful  ministers,  purely  and  truly  to  minister  Christ's  Evangel 
and  Sacraments  to  his  people.  We  shall  maintain  them,  nourish  them,  and 
defend  them,  the  whole  Congregation  of  Christ  and  every  member  thereof, 
at  our  whole  power  and  wearing  of  our  lives,  against  Satan  and  all  wicked 
power  that  does  intend  tyranny  or  trouble  against  the  foresaid  Congregation. 
Unto  the  which  Holy  Word  and  Congregation  we  do  join  us,  and  also  do 
forsake  and  renounce  the  congregation  of  Satan  with  all  the  superstitious 
abomination  and  idolatry  thereof  :  and  moreover  shall  declare  ourselves 
manifestly  enemies  thereto  by  this  our  faithful  promise  before  God,  testified 
to  His  Congregation  by  our  subscription  at  these  presents." 

The  Covenant  of  the  Scotch  nobles  marked  a  new  epoch  in  the  strife  of 
religions.  Till  now  the  reformers  had  opposed  the  doctrine  of  nationality  to 
the  doctrine  of  Catholicism.  In  the  teeth  of  the  pretensions  which  the 
Church  advanced  to  a  uniformity  of  religion  in  every  land,  whatever  might 
be  its  differences  of  race  or  government,  the  first  Protestants  had  advanced 


*-* DIVERSITY  / 

or         J 
*$4M£20*r  The  Scottish  Kirk 


109 


the  principle  that  each  prince  or  people  had  alone  the  right  to  determine  its 
form  of  faith  and  worship.  "  Cujus  regio  "  ran  the  famous  phrase  which 
embodied  their  theory,  "ejus  religio."  It  was  the  acknowledgment  of  this 
principle  that  the  Lutheran  princes  obtained  at  the  Diet  of  Spires  ;  it  was  on 
this  principle  that  Henry  based  his  Act  of  Supremacy.  Its  strength  lay  in 
the  correspondence  of  such  a  doctrine  with  the  political  circumstances  of 
the  time.  It  was  the  growing  feeling  of  nationality  which  combined  with  the 
growing  development  of  monarchical  power  to  establish  the  theory  that  the 
political  and  religious  life  of  each  nation  should  be  one,  and  that  the  religion 
of  the  people  should  follow  the  faith  of  the  prince.  Had  Protestantism,  as 
seemed  at  one  time  possible,  secured  the  adhesion  of  all  the  European 
princes,  such  a  theory  might  well  have  led  everywhere  as  it  led  in  England 
to  the  establishment  of  the  worst  of  tyrannies,  a  tyranny  that  claims  to  lord 
alike  over  both  body  and  soul.  The  world  was  saved  from  this  danger  by 
the  tenacity  with  which  the  old  religion  still  held  its  power.  In  half  the 
countries  of  Europe  the  disciples  of  the  new  opinions  had  soon  to  choose 
between  submission  to  their  conscience  and  submission  to  their  prince  ;  and 
a  movement  which  began  in  contending  for  the  religious  supremacy  of 
kings  ended  in  those  wars  of  religion  which  arrayed  nation  after  nation 
against  their  sovereigns.  In  this  religious  revolution  Scotland  led  the  way. 
Her  Protestantism  was  the  first  to  draw  the  sword  against  earthly  rulers. 
The  solemn  "  Covenant "  which  bound  together  her  "  Congregation  "  in  the 
face  of  the  regency,  which  pledged  its  members  to  withdraw  from  all  sub- 
mission to  the  religion  of  the  State  and  to  maintain  in  the  face  of  the  State 
their  liberty  of  conscience,  opened  that  vast  series  of  struggles  which  ended 
in  Germany  with  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  and  in  England  with  the  Toleration 
Act  of  William  the  Third. 

The  "  Covenant "  of  the  lords  sounded  a  bold  defiance  to  the  Catholic 
reaction  across  the  border.  While  Mary  replaced  the  Prayer-book  by  the 
Mass,  the  Scotch  lords  resolved  that  wherever  their  power  extended  the 
Common  Prayer  should  be  read  in  all  churches.  While  hundreds  were  going 
to  the  stake  in  England,  the  Scotch  nobles  boldly  met  the  burning  of  their 
preachers  by  a  threat  of  war.  "  They  trouble  our  preachers,"  ran  their  bold 
remonstrance  against  the  bishops  in  the  Queen-mother's  presence  ;  "  they 
would  murder  them  and  us  !  shall  we  suffer  this  any  longer  ?  No,  madam, 
it  shall  not  be  !  "  and  therewith  every  man  put  on  his  steel  bonnet. 

The  testimony  of  Froude  is  likewise  equally  direct  and  positive 7  : 

But  in  England  the  Reformation  was  more  than  half  political.  The 
hatred  of  priests  and  popes  was  more  a  predominant  principle  than  specialty  of 
doctrine.  .  .  .  What  kings  and  Parliament  had  done  in  England,  in  Scot- 
land had  to  be  done  by  the  people,  and  was  accompanied  therefore  with  the 
passionate  features  of  revolt  against  authority.  .  .  .  John  Knox  became 
thus  the  representative  of  all  that  was  best  in  Scotland.  He  was  no  narrow 
fanatic,  who,  in  a  world  in  which  God's  grace  was  equally  visible  in  a 
thousand  creeds,  could  see  truth  and  goodness  nowhere  but  in  his  own  for- 
mula. He  was  a  large,  noble,  generous  man,  with  a  shrewd  perception  of 
actual  fact,  who  found  himself  face  to  face  with  a  system  of  hideous  iniquity. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  direct  refutation  of  Buckle's  statements  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  Scottish  Reformation,  by  four  leading  authorities  on  British 
history,  and  their  opinions  are  merely  confirmatory  of  the  judgment  of  all 
observing  and  unprejudiced  men. 


1 10  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Much  in  the  same  line  with  Mr.  Buckle's  theory  of  the  origin  and  accom- 
plishment of  the  Reformation  in  Scotland  is  the  oft-repeated  assertion  that  the 
Scottish  Church  was  as  relentless  and  unceasing  a  persecutor  of  dissenters  as 
were  those  of  the  Papacy  or  Episcopacy.8  This  assertion,  likewise,  is  not 
sustained  by  the  facts.  Bigoted  and  intolerant  as  the  Scottish  Church  became 
after  it  was  made  a  part  of  the  machinery  of  State,  its  methods  were  mild 
and  innocuous  compared  with  those  of  its  rivals.9  The  one  solitary  case 
where  death  was  inflicted  by  the  authorities  for  heresy,  at  the  instigation  or 
with  the  approval  of  the  Kirk,  was  that  of  Thomas  Aikenhead,  who  was 
hanged  in  1697  on  the  charge  of  atheism  and  blasphemy  against  God. 
While  this  was  a  wholly  unjustifiable  and  villainous  act  of  cruelty,  it  can 
hardly  be  classed  with  those  persecutions  from  which  the  Presbyterians  had 
suffered.  It  would  seem  to  belong  rather  to  that  class  of  religious  perversi- 
ties of  which  the  most  familiar  example  was  the  burning  of  witches.  In 
this  latter  diabolism  Scotland  engaged  with  perhaps  greater  zest  than  either 
England  or  Massachusetts.  The  distinction  between  the  crime  of  the 
hanging  of  Thomas  Aikenhead  and  that  of  the  burning  of  George  Wishart, 
by  the  Catholics,  or  the  drowning  of  Margaret  Wilson,  by  the  Episcopalians, 
therefore,  is  probably  to  be  found  by  a  contrast  of  motive  rather  than  of  de- 
gree ;  at  most  it  is  the  difference  between  fanaticism  and  tyranny.  In  the 
latter  cases,  the  sufferers  had  denied  the  authority  of  the  bishops.  These 
prelates  aimed  at  preferment  by  mixing  politics  with  religion,  and  could  not 
be  wholly  sincere  or  disinterested.  George  Wishart  and  Margaret  Wilson  were 
slain  by  them  because  the  bishops  could  brook  no  limitations  upon  their  own 
power.  In  the  case  of  Thomas  Aikenhead,  the  authority  of  God  had  been 
questioned,  and  the  fanatical  zealotry  of  the  ministers  permitted  the  applica- 
tion of  John  Cotton's  law,  without  the  apparent  intervention  of  any  personal 
motives.10  If  such  a  distinction  should  at  first  appear  too  finely  drawn,  an  ex- 
amination of  the  workings  of  the  two  principles  thus  suggested  will  show  that 
their  results  are,  as  a  rule,  widely  different.  Indeed,  in  some  aspects,  their 
dissimilarity  is  almost  of  equal  extent  and  correspondence  with  that  existing 
between  the  two  churches  of  North  and  South  Britain;  and  the  divergence  of 
their  ends  but  little  short  of  that  which  marks  the  two  opposite  principles  of 
democracy  and  despotism.  In  New  England,  where  the  Calvinistic  theory 
of  the  supremacy  of  God  and  the  Bible  over  man's  conscience  was  at  first  as 
fully  carried  out  as  in  Scotland,  a  system  of  democracy  was  inaugurated 
which,  until  its  progress  became  retarded  by  the  union  of  Church  and  State, 
reached  a  higher  degree  of  perfection  than  had  been  the  case  in  any  other 
English  community.  This  system,  but  for  the  entrance  and  long-continued 
presence  of  the  fatally  defective  policy  of  ecclesiastical  usurpation  in  secular 
affairs,  might  have  developed  into  an  ideal  form  of  government.  In  Old 
England,  on  the  contrary,  where  the  authority  of  the  bishops  over  man's  con- 
science was  ever  maintained  and  the  theory  fully  developed  by  Laud  and 
Sharp  and  the  Stuarts,  a  highly  despotic  form  of  government  resulted,  from 


The  Scottish  Kirk  in 

which  mankind  had  occasionally  to  find  relief  by  "  blood-letting,"  as  in  the 
revolutions  of  1638  and  1688.  The  only  similarity  apparent  in  the  ultimate 
workings  of  these  two  principles,  therefore,  would  seem  to  be  that  identi- 
cal results  have  sometimes  been  reached  by  the  action  of  one  and  reaction 
from  the  other. 

No  theological  system  has  yet  been  devised  that  is  able  to  sustain  this 
dual  relation — secular  and  spiritual — without  deteriorating  ;  and  the  history 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Scotland  after  1690,  when  it  became  the  estab- 
lished Church  of  the  State,  marks  a  rapid  change  in  spirit  and  a  steady 
decadence  in  spiritual  power  and  influence,  only  paralleled,  perhaps,  by  that 
of  the  kindred  Church  of  New  England  after  1640. 

Charles  II.,  at  the  time  of  his  father's  death,  was  a  friendless  fugitive. 
The  Scotch  offered  to  receive  him  as  their  king,  on  condition  that  he  should 
pledge  himself  by  oath  to  regard  and  preserve  their  Presbyterian  form  of 
Church  government.  To  this  he  assented.  When  he  arrived  in  the  kingdom 
he  subscribed  the  covenant  ;  and  again  at  his  coronation,  under  circum- 
stances of  much  more  than  usual  solemnity,  he  swore  to  preserve  it  inviolate. 
The  Scotch  accordingly,  armed  in  his  defence  ;  but,  divided  among  them- 
selves, and  led  by  a  general  very  unfit  to  cope  with  Cromwell,  they  were  soon 
defeated,  and  Charles  was  again  driven  to  the  Continent.  When  he  returned 
in  1660,  he  voluntarily  renewed  his  promise  to  the  Scotch,  by  whom  his  res- 
toration had  been  greatly  promoted,  not  to  interfere  with  the  liberty  of  their 
Church.  No  sooner,  however,  was  he  firmly  seated  on  his  throne  than  all 
these  oaths  and  promises  were  forgotten.  Presbyterianism  was  at  once 
abolished,  and  Episcopacy  established  ;  not  such  as  it  was  under  James  I. 
when  bishops  were  little  more  than  standing  moderators  of  the  Presbyteries, 
but  invested,  by  the  arbitrary  mandate  of  the  King,  with  the  fulness  of  pre- 
latical  power.  An  act  was  passed  making  it  penal  even  to  speak  publicly  or 
privately  against  the  King's  supremacy,  or  the  government  of  the  Church  by 
archbishops  and  bishops.  A  court  of  high  commission,  of  which  all  the  pre- 
lates were  members,  was  erected  and  armed  with  inquisitorial  powers.  Multi- 
tudes of  learned  and  pious  ministers  were  ejected  from  their  parishes,  and 
ignorant  and  ungodly  men,  for  the  most  part,  introduced  in  their  stead.  Yet 
the  people  were  forced,  under  severe  penalties,  to  attend  the  ministrations  of 
these  unworthy  men.  All  ejected  ministers  were  prohibited  preaching  or 
praying  except  in  their  own  families  ;  and  preaching  or  praying  in  the  fields 
was  made  punishable  with  death.  Any  one,  though  the  nearest  relative,  who 
should  shelter,  aid,  or  in  any  way  minister  to  the  wants  of  those  denounced, 
was  held  liable  to  the  same  penalty  as  the  person  assisted.  All  landholders 
were  required  to  give  bond  that  their  families  and  dependants  should  abstain 
from  attending  any  conventicle.  To  enforce  these  wicked  laws  torture  was 
freely  used  to  extort  evidence  or  confession  ;  families  were  reduced  to  ruin 
by  exorbitant  fines  ;  the  prisons  were  filled  with  victims  of  oppression  ;  mul- 
titudes were  banished  and  sold  as  slaves  :  women  and  even  children  were 


ii2  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

tortured  or  murdered  for  refusing  to  take  an  oath  they  could  not  under- 
stand ;  soldiers  were  quartered  upon  the  defenceless  inhabitants  and  allowed 
free  license  ;  men  were  hunted  like  wild  beasts,  and  shot  or  gibbeted  along 
the  highways.  Modern  history  hardly  affords  a  parallel  to  the  cruelty  and 
oppression  under  which  Scotland  groaned  for  nearly  thirty  years.  And 
what  was  the  object  of  all  this  wickedness  ?  It  was  to  support  Episcopacy. 
It  was  done  for  the  bishops,  and,  in  a  great  measure,  by  them.  They  were 
the  instigators  and  supporters  of  these  cruel  laws,  and  of  the  still  more  cruel 
execution  of  them.  Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  that  the  Scotch  abhorred  Episco- 
pacy ?  It  was  in  their  experience  identified  with  despotism,  superstition,  and 
irreligion.  Their  love  of  Presbyterianism  was  one  with  their  love  of  liberty 
and  religion.  As  the  Parliament  of  Scotland  was  never  a  fair  representation 
of  the  people,  the  General  Assembly  of  their  Church  became  their  great 
organ  for  resisting  oppression  and  withstanding  the  encroachments  of  their 
sovereigns.  The  conflict,  therefore,  which  in  England  was  so  long  kept 
up  between  the  Crown  and  the  House  of  Commons,  was  in  Scotland  sustained 
between  the  Crown  and  the  Church.  This  was  one  reason  why  the  Scotch 
became  so  attached  to  Presbyterianism  ;  this,  too,  was  the  reason  why  the 
Stuarts  hated  it,  and  determined  at  all  hazards  to  introduce  prelacy  as  an 
ally  to  despotism." 

The  chief  period  of  the  so-called  Presbyterian  persecution  in  Scotland 
was  that  immediately  succeeding  the  Revolution  of  1688,  when  we  do  find 
a  wholesale  expulsion  of  the  Episcopal  clergy,  and,  so  far  as  it  could  be  done 
without  the  use  of  measures  involving  the  loss  of  life  and  limb,  an  earnest 
attempt  to  suppress  Episcopacy  in  Scotland.  This,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered, was  immediately  at  the  close  of  a  reign  of  terror  which  had  existed  in 
that  country  for  twenty-five  or  thirty  years,  and  was  but  the  fuller  carry- 
ing out  for  Scotland  of  the  work  of  the  Revolution.  As  the  calling  of  the 
Prince  of  Orange  and  the  expulsion  of  James  II.  was  first  made  possible 
through  the  fear  of  Papacy  on  the  part  of  the  English,  so  the  progress  and 
success  of  the  Revolution  was  finally  assured  only  by  the  fixed  determination 
of  the  Scots  to  rid  themselves  of  Episcopacy,  and  to  re-establish  the  popular 
religion  which  had  been  overthrown  by  Charles.  They  had  infinitely  greater 
cause  to  fear  the  bishops  of  the  Anglican  Church  than  their  southern  neigh- 
bors had  to  fear  those  of  St.  Peter's.  They  had  suffered  tenfold  more  from 
the  oppressions  of  the  British  pope  and  his  bishops  than  had  the  English 
from  those  of  the  pontiff  of  Rome.  In  the  annals  of  religious  persecution  in 
the  British  Islands,  the  crimes  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  were  but 
venial  compared  with  the  enormities  perpetrated  through  the  ambition  and 
malignancy  of  the  prelates  and  heads  of  the  Established  Church  of  England, 
by  which  the  Scots  were  the  chief  sufferers.13 

So  far  as  Scotland  was  concerned,  therefore,  the  benefits  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, the  success  of  which  that  country  had  rendered  possible,  would  have 
been  wholly  lost  to  it,  had  the  chief  provoking  cause  been  left  unmolested 


The  Scottish  Kirk 


ii3 


and  entrenched  in  a  position  for  working  further  harm  to  the  cause  of  human 
liberty.  All  the  legitimate  arguments  which  may  be  made  to  justify  the 
overthrow  of  papal  authority  in  England,  apply  with  thrice-augmented  force 
to  sustain  the  action  of  the  Scottish  people  in  breaking  the  wings  of  those 
ecclesiastical  vampires  who  had  been  draining  the  life-blood  of  Scotland. 
Nay,  the  whole  force  of  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  Protestant  Reformation 
of  Christendom  must  be  broken  before  it  can  successfully  be  maintained  that 
the  action  of  the  Scottish  people  in  uprooting  the  Episcopal  system  was  in- 
consistent with  their  professed  devotion  to  the  cause  of  religious  liberty.18 

The  extent  to  which  the  cause  of  the  Covenanters  was  bound  up  with 
that  of  human  liberty  and  opposed  to  the  united  despotism  of  king  and 
prelate  may  be  shown  by  the  reproduction  of  the  celebrated  Queensferry 
Paper,  for  their  approval  of  the  revolutionary  sentiments  of  which  so  many 
of  the  Scottish  martyrs  suffered  death.  The  substance  of  the  contents  of  this 
document,  and  the  accompanying  account  of  its  origin,  are  copied  from  the 
appendix  to  the  Cloud  of  Witnesses  (15th  edition,  pp.  343-348),  as  follows  : 

A  brief  relation  of  the  persecutions  and  death  of  that  worthy  gentleman, 
Henry  Hall  of  Haughhead,  who  suffered  martyrdom  at  Queensferry, 
June  3,  1680.14 

Henry  Hall  of  Haughhead,  having  had  religious  education,  began  early 
to  mind  a  life  of  holiness  ;  and  was  of  a  pious  conversation  from  his  youth  ; 
he  was  a  zealous  opposer  of  the  public  resolutions,  insomuch  that  when  the 
minister  of  the  parish  where  he  lived  complied  with  that  course,  he  refused 
to  hear  him,  and  went  to  Ancrum,  to  hear  Mr.  John  Livingston.  Being  op- 
pressed with  the  malicious  persecutions  of  the  curates  and  other  malignants 
for  his  nonconformity  with  the  profane  courses  of  abomination,  that  com- 
menced at  the  unhappy  restoration  of  that  most  wicked  tyrant  Charles  II. 
he  was  obliged  to  depart  his  native  country,  and  go  over  the  border  into  Eng- 
land in  the  year  1665,  where  he  was  so  much  renowned  for  his  singular  zeal 
in  propagating  the  gospel  among  the  people,  who  before  his  coming  among 
them  were  very  rude  and  barbarous  ;  but  many  of  them  became  famous  for 
piety  after.  In  the  year  1666,  he  was  taken  in  his  way  to  Pentland,  coming 
to  the  assistance  of  his  convenanted  brethren,  and  was  imprisoned  with  some 
others  in  Sessford  castle,  but  by  the  divine  goodness  he  soon  escaped  thence 
through  the  favour  of  the  Earl  of  Roxburgh,  to  whom  the  castle  pertained, 
the  said  earl  being  his  friend  and  relation  ;  from  which  time,  till  about  the 
year  1679,  he  lived  peaceably  in  England,  much  beloved  of  all  that  knew  him, 
for  his  concern  in  propagating  the  knowledge  of  Christ  in  that  country  ;  in- 
somuch that  his  blameless  and  shining  christian  conversation,  drew  reverence 
and  esteem  from  his  very  enemies.  But  about  the  year  1678,  the  heat  of  the 
persecution  in  Scotland  obliging  many  to  wander  up  and  down  through 
Northumberland  and  other  places  ;  one  colonel  Struthers  intended  to  seize 
any  Scotsman  he  could  find  in  those  parts  ;  and  meeting  with  Thomas  Ker 
of  Hayhope,  one  of  Henry  Hall's  nearest  intimates,  he  was  engaged  in  that 
encounter  upon  the  account  of  the  said  Thomas  Ker,  who  was  killed  there  :  ■ 
upon  which  account,  he  was  forced  to  return  to  Scotland,  and  wandered  up 
and  down  during  the  hottest  time  of  the  persecution,  mostly  with  Mr.  Rich- 
ard Cameron  and  Mr.  Donald  Cargil,  during  which  time,  besides  his  many 


H4  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

other  christian  virtues,  he  signalized  himself  for  a  real  zeal  in  defence  of  the 
persecuted  gospel  preached  in  the  fields,  and  gave  several  proofs  of  his 
valour  and  courage,  particularly  at  Rutherglen,  Drumclog,  Glasgow,  and 
Bothwell-bridge  ;  whereupon  being  forefaulted  and  violently  pursued,  to 
eschew  the  violent  hands  of  his  indefatigable  persecutors,  he  was  forced  to 
go  over  to  Holland  ;  where  he  had  not  stayed  long,  when  his  zeal  for  the 
persecuted  interest  of  Christ,  and  his  tender  sympathy  with  the  afflicted 
remnant  of  his  covenanted  brethren  in  Scotland,  then  wandering  through 
the  desolate  caverns  and  dens  of  the  earth,  drew  him  home,  choosing  rather 
to  undergo  the  utmost  efforts  of  persecuting  fury,  than  to  live  at  ease  when 
Joseph  was  in  affliction,  making  Moses'  generous  choice,  rather  to  suffer 
affliction  with  the  people  of  God,  that  he  might  be  a  partaker  of  the  fellow- 
ship of  Christ's  sufferings,  than  to  enjoy  that  momentary  pleasure  the  ease 
of  the  world  could  afford  ;  nor  was  he  much  concerned  with  the  riches  of 
the  world,  for  he  stood  not  to  give  his  ground  to  hold  the  prohibited  field- 
preachings  upon,  when  none  else  would  do  it ;  he  was  a  lover  and  follower 
of  the  faithfully  preached  gospel,  and  was  always  against  the  indulgence  ;  he 
was  with  Mr.  Richard  Cameron  at  those  meetings  where  he  was  censured. 

About  a  quarter  of  a  year  after  his  return  from  Holland,  being  in  com- 
pany with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Donald  Cargil,  they  were  taken  notice  of  by  two 
blood-hounds  the  curates  of  Borrowstounness  and  Carridden,  who  went  to 
Middleton,  governor  of  Blackness-castle,  and  informed  him  of  them  ;  who 
having  consulted  with  these  blood-thirsty  ruffians,  ordered  his  soldiers  to 
follow  him  at  a  distance  by  two  or  three  together,  with  convenient  intervals 
for  avoiding  suspicion  ;  and  he  (the  said  Middleton)  and  his  man  riding  up, 
observed  where  they  alighted  and  stabled  their  horses  ;  and  coming  to  them, 
pretended  a  great  deal  of  kindness  and  civilities  to  Mr.  Donald  Cargil  and 
him,  desiring  that  they  might  have  a  glass  of  wine  together.  When  they 
were  set,  and  had  taken  each  a  glass,  Middleton  laid  hands  on  them,  and 
told  them  they  were  his  prisoners,  commanding  in  the  king's  name  all  the 
people  of  the  house  to  assist,  which  they  all  refused,  save  a  certain  waiter, 
through  whose  means  the  governor  got  the  gates  shut  till  the  soldiers  came 
up  ;  and  when  the  women  of  the  town,  rising  to  the  rescue  of  the  prisoners, 
had  broke  up  the  outer  gate,  Henry  Hall,  after  some  scuffle  with  the  gov- 
ernor in  the  house,  making  his  escape  by  the  gate,  received  his  mortal  blow 
upon  his  head,  with  a  carbine  by  Thomas  George,  waiter,  and  being  conveyed 
out  of  the  town  by  the  assistance  of  the  women,  walked  some  pretty  space 
of  way  upon  his  feet,  but  unable  to  speak  much,  save  only  that  he  made 
some  short  reflection  upon  a  woman  that  interposed  between  him  and  the 
governor,  hindered  him  to  kill  the  governor,  and  so  to  make  his  escape 
timeously.  So  soon  as  he  fainted,  the  women  carried  him  to  a  house  in  the 
country,  and  notwithstanding  the  care  of  surgeons,  he  never  recovered 
the  power  of  speaking  more.  General  Dalziel  being  advertised,  came  with 
a  party  of  the  guards,  and  carried  him  to  Edinburgh  ;  he  died  by  the  way  : 
his  corpse  they  carried  to  the  Cannon  gate  tolbooth,  and  kept  him  there 
three  days  without  burial,  though  a  number  of  friends  convened  for  that 
effect,  and  thereafter  they  caused  bury  him  clandestinely  in  the  night.  Such 
was  the  fury  of  these  limbs  of  antichrist,  that  having  killed  the  witnesses, 
they  would  not  suffer  their  dead  bodies  to  be  decently  put  in  graves. 

There  was  found  upon  him  the  rude  draught  of  a  paper  containing  a 
mutual  engagement  to  stand  to  the  necessary  duty  of  the  day  against  its 
stated  enemies  ;  which  was  called  by  the  persecutors,  Mr.  Cargil's  convenant, 
and  frequently  in  the  foregoing  testimonies,  the  Queensferry  paper,  because 


The  Scottish  Kirk  115 

there  it  was  seized  by  the  enemies.  This  paper  Divine  Providence  seems  to 
have  made  as  it  were  the  dying  words  and  testimony  of  that  worthy  gentle- 
man ;  and  the  enemies  made  it  one  of  the  captious  and  ensnaring  questions 
they  constantly  put  to  the  sufferers,  and  therefore  it  will  not  be  impertinent 
here  to  insert  the  heads  of  it,  as  they  are  compendized  by  the  learned  author 
of  The  Hind  Let  Loose,  page  133.  For  it  was  still  owned  by  Mr.  Donald 
Cargil,  that  the  draught  was  not  digested  and  polished,  as  it  was  intended, 
and  therefore  it  will  be  so  far  from  being  a  wrong  to  recite  the  heads  of  it 
only,  that  it  is  really  a  piece  of  justice  done  him,  who  never  intended  it 
should  see  the  world  as  it  was  when  the  enemies  found  it.  I  shall  not  pretend 
to  justify  every  expression  in  it,  but  rather  submit  it  entirely  to  better  judg- 
ments ;  nor  did  the  sufferers  for  most  part  adhere  to  it,  without  the  limitation 
(so  far  as  it  was  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  our  national  covenants) 
and  in  so  far  as  it  seems  to  import  a  purpose  of  assuming  to  themselves  a 
magistratical  authority,  their  practice  declares  all  along,  that  they  did  not 
undertand  it  in  that  sense  : 

The  tenor  of  it  was  an  engagement, 

1st,  To  avouch  the  only  true  and  living  God  to  be  their  God,  and  to  close 
with  his  way  of  redemption  by  his  son  Jesus  Christ,  whose  righteousness  is 
only  to  be  relied  upon  for  justification  ;  and  to  take  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  only  object  of  faith,  and  rule  of  conversa- 
tion in  all  things.  2d,  To  establish  in  the  land  righteousness  and  religion, 
in  the  truth  of  its  doctrine,  purity  and  power  of  its  worship,  discipline  and 
government,  and  to  free  the  church  of  God  of  the  corruption  of  Prelacy,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  thraldom  of  Erastianism  on  the  other.  3d,  To  persevere 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  reformed  churches,  especially  that  of  Scotland,  and  in 
the  worship  prescribed  in  the  Scriptures,  without  the  inventions,  adornings, 
and  corruptions  of  men  ;  and  in  the  Presbyterian  government,  exercised  in 
sessions,  presbyteries,  synods  and  general  assemblies,  as  a  distinct  govern- 
ment from  the  civil,  and  distinctly  to  be  exercised,  not  after  a  carnal  manner, 
by  plurality  of  votes,  or  authority  of  a  single  person,  but  according  to  the 
Word  of  God,  making  and  carrying  the  sentence.  4th,  To  endeavour  the 
overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  and  whatsoever  is  contrary  to 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  especially  idolatry  and  popery  in  all  its  articles,  and 
the  overthrow  of  that  power  that  hath  established  and  upheld  it — And  to 
execute  righteousness  and  judgment  impartially,  according  to  the  Word  of 
God,  and  degree  of  offences,  upon  the  committers  of  these  things  especially, 
to-wit,  blasphemy,  idolatry,  atheism,  buggery,  sorcery,  perjury,  uncleanness, 
profanation  of  the  Lord's  day,  oppression  and  malignancy.  5th,  Seriously 
considering, — there  is  no  more  speedy  way  of  relaxation  from  the  wrath  of 
God,  than  hath  ever  lien  upon  the  land  since  it  engaged  with  these  rulers, 
but  of  rejecting  them,  who  hath  so  manifestly  rejected  God, — disclaiming  his 
covenant — governing  contrary  to  all  right  laws,  divine  and  human — and  con- 
trary to  all  the  ends  of  government,  by  enacting  and  commanding  impieties, 
injuries  and  robberies,  to  the  denying  of  God  his  due,  and  the  subjects  theirs  ; 
so  that  instead  of  government,  godliness,  and  peace,  there  is  nothing  but 
rapine,  tumult,  and  blood,  which  cannot  be  called  a  government,  but  a  lust- 
ful rage — and  they  cannot  be  called  governors,  but  public  grassators  and 
land  judgments,  which  all  ought  to  set  themselves  against,  as  they  would  do 
against  pestilence,  sword,  and  famine,  raging  amongst  them — Seeing  they 
have  stopped  the  course  of  the  law  and  justice  against  blasphemers,  idol- 
aters, atheists,  buggerers,  murderers,  incestuous  and  adulterous  persons 
—  and  have   made  butcheries  on  the  Lord's  people,  sold  them  as  slaves, 


u6  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

imprisoned,  forfeited,  &c.  and  that  upon  no  other  account,  but  their  main- 
taining Christ's  right  of  ruling  over  their  consciences,  against  the  usurpations 
of  men.  Therefore,  easily  solving  the  objections  :  First,  Of  our  ancestors 
obliging  the  nation  to  this  race  and  line  ;  that  they  did  not  buy  their  liberty 
with  our  thraldom,  nor  could  they  bind  their  children  to  anything  so  much 
to  their  prejudice,  and  against  natural  liberty,  (being  a  benefit  next  to  life, 
if  not  in  some  regard  above  it)  which  is  not  an  engagement  to  moral  things  : 
they  could  only  bind  to  that  government,  which  they  esteemed  the  best  for 
common  good  ;  which  reason  ceasing,  we  are  free  to  choose  another,  if  we 
find  it  more  conducible  for  that  end.  Second,  Of  the  covenant  binding  to 
defend  the  king  ;  that  that  obligation  is  only  in  his  maintenance  of  the  true 
covenanted  reformation, — which  homage  they  cannot  now  require  upon  the 
account  of  the  covenant  which  they  have  renounced  and  disclaimed  ;  and 
upon  no  other  ground  we  are  bound  to  them — the  crown  not  being  an  in- 
heritance, that  passeth  from  father  to  son,  without  the  consent  of  tenants. 
Third,  Of  the  hope  of  their  returning  from  these  courses,  whereof  there  is 
none,  seeing  they  have  so  often  declared  their  purposes  of  persevering  in 
them.  And  suppose  they  should  dissemble  a  repentance, — supposing  also  they 
might  be  pardoned  for  that  which  is  done  —  from  whose  guiltiness  the  land 
cannot  be  cleansed,  but  by  executing  God's  righteous  judgments  upon  them, 
— yet  they  cannot  now  be  believed  after  they  have  violated  all  that  human 
wisdom  could  devise  to  bind  them. 

Upon  these  accounts  they  reject  that  king,  and  those  associate  with  him 
in  the  government, — and  declare  them  henceforth  no  lawful  rulers,  as  they 
had  declared  them  to  be  no  lawful  subjects, — they  having  destroyed  the 
established  religion,  overturned  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  kingdom,  taken 
away  Christ's  church-government,  and  changed  the  civil  into  tyranny,  where 
none  are  associate  in  partaking  of  the  government,  but  only  those  who  will 
be  found  by  justice  guilty  as  criminals. — And  declare  they  shall,  God 
giving  them  power,  set  up  government  and  governors  according  to  the 
Word  of  God,  and  the  qualifications  required,  Exodus  xviii.  20 — And  shall 
not  commit  the  government  to  any  single  person  or  lineal  succession,  being 
not  tyed  as  the  Jews  were  to  one  single  family, — and  that  kind  being  liable 
to  most  inconveniences,  and  aptest  to  degenerate  tyranny. — And  moreover, 
that  these  men  set  over  them,  shall  be  engaged  to  govern,  principally  by  that 
civil  and  judicial  law,  (not  that  which  is  any  way  typical)  given  by  God  to 
his  people  Israel — as  the  best,  so  far  as  it  goes,  being  given  by  God — espe- 
cially in  matters  of  life  and  death,  and  other  things  so  far  as  they  reach,  and 
are  consistent  with  christian  liberty — exempting  divorces  and  polygamy,  &c. 

6th,  Seeing  the  greatest  part  of  ministers  not  only  were  defective  in  preach- 
ing against  the  rulers  for  overthrowing  religion — but  hindered  others  also 
who  were  willing,  and  censured  some  that  did  it — and  have  voted  for  accep- 
tation of  that  liberty,  founded  upon,  and  given  by  virtue  of  that  blasphe- 
mously arrogate  and  usurped  power — and  appeared  before  their  courts  to 
accept  of  it,  and  to  be  enacted  and  authorized  their  ministers — whereby 
they  have  become  ministers  of  men,  and  bound  to  be  answerable  to  them  as 
they  will. — And  have  preached  for  the  lawfulness  of  paying  that  tribute,  de- 
clared to  be  imposed  for  the  bearing  down  of  the  true  worship  of  God. — 
And  advised  poor  prisoners  to  subscribe  that  bond, — which  if  it  were  uni- 
versally subscribed, — they  should  close  that  door,  which  the  Lord  hath  made 
use  of  in  all  the  churches  of  Europe,  for  casting  off  the  yoke  of  the  whore, 
— and  stop  all  regress  of  men,  when  once  brought  under  tyranny,  to  recover 
their  liberty  again. — They  declare  they  neither  can  nor  will  hear  them  &c, 


The  Scottish  Kirk  117 

nor  any  who  encouraged  and  strengthened  their  hands,  and  pleaded  for 
them,  and  trafficked  for  union  with  them.  7th,  That  they  are  for  a  standing 
gospel  ministry,  rightly  chosen,  and  rightly  ordained, — and  that  none  shall  take 
upon  them  the  preaching  of  the  word,  &c,  unless  called  and  ordained 
thereunto. 

And  whereas  separation  might  be  imputed  to  them,  they  repel  both  the 
malice,  and  the  ignorance  of  that  calumny. — For  if  there  be  a  separation,  it 
must  be  where  the  change  is  ;  and  that  was  not  to  be  found  in  them,  who 
were  not  separating  from  the  communion  of  the  true  church  ;  nor  setting  up 
a  new  ministry,  but  cleaving  to  the  same  ministers  and  ordinances  that 
formerly  they  followed,  when  others  have  fled  to  new  ways,  and  a  new 
authority,  which  is  like  the  old  piece  in  the  new  garment.  8th,  That  they 
shall  defend  themselves  in  their  civil,  natural  and  divine  rights  and  liberties. 
— And  if  any  assault  them,  they  shall  look  on  it  as  a  declaring  a  war,  and 
take  all  advantages  that  one  enemy  does  of  another — But  trouble  and  injure 
none,  but  those  that  injure  them. 

NOTES    TO   CHAPTER   VIII. 

1  During  the  first  fifty  years  of  this  time,  the  Scottish  Kirk  was  practically  supreme. 
What  it  then  did  to  "retard  human  progress,"  as  Mr.  Buckle  would  say,  is  best  summed 
up  in  the  words  of  its  enemy.  King  James  VI.,  spoken  when  he  first  went  down  into 
England,  and  presided  at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  held  in  January,  1604.     See  pp. 

434-36. 

2  History  of  Civilization  in  England,  vol.  ii.,  ch.  ii.-v. 

3  What  may  be  termed,  in  its  broadest  sense,  the  utilitarian  tendency  of  modern  re- 
ligious thought,  may  be  noted  in  some  of  the  popular  writings  of  Alfred  Russell  Wallace,  S. 
Laing,  A.  J.  Balfour,  Benjamin  Kidd,  Matthew  Arnold,  John  Fiske,  etc. 

4  Vol.  ii.,  ch.  ii.  (vol.  ii.,  pp.  152,  153,  American  edition). 

8  See  also  Gardiner's  History   of  England,   1603-1642,  vol.  i.,  pp.  22-26;   vol.  viii., 

PP.  373-375. 

6  History  of  England,  book  vi.,  ch.  ii. 

7  History  of  England,  vol.  vi.,  ch.  xxxvii.,  pp.  220,  221. 

8  The  Scotch  have  been  greatly,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  justly  blamed,  because,  instead 
of  being  satisfied  with  securing  the  liberty  of  their  own  church,  they  insisted  on  the  over- 
throw of  that  of  England.  It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  intolerance  was  the 
epidemic  of  the  age.  The  Episcopalians  enforced  the  prayer-book,  the  Presbyterians  the 
covenant,  the  Independents  the  engagement.  The  last  being  more  of  a  political  character 
than  either  of  the  others,  was,  so  far,  the  least  objectionable.  It  was,  however,  both  in  de- 
sign and  in  fact,  what  Neal  calls  it,  "a  severe  test  for  the  Presbyterians."  Besides,  the  rigid 
doctrine  of  the  exclusive  divine  right  of  Presbyterianism,  and  an  intolerant  opposition  to 
Prelacy,  did  not  prevail  among  the  Scotch  until  they  were  driven,  by  persecution,  into  ex- 
treme opinions.  When  they  found  Episcopacy,  in  their  own  bitter  experience,  associated 
with  despotism  and  superstition,  and,  in  their  firm  belief,  with  irreligion  and  Popery,  it  is 
not  wonderful  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  bitter  root  which  could  bear  nothing  good.  Their 
best  apology  is  that  which  they  themselves  urged  at  the  time.  They  considered  it  essential 
to  the  liberty  of  their  church  and  country  that  the  power  of  the  bishops  should  be  destroyed 
in  England.  The  persecutions  which  they  had  already  endured,  and  their  just  apprehensions 
of  still  greater  evils,  sprang  from  the  principles  and  conduct  of  the  English  prelates.  How 
well  founded  this  opinion  was,  the  atrocities  consequent  on  the  restoration  of  Charles  II. 
and  the  re-establishment  of  Episcopacy,  abundantly  proved.  — Hodge,  History  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  vol.  i.,  pp.  46,  47. 

•See  Lecky,  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  ii.,  ch.  v. 


n8  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

10  The  Assembly  which  met  in  the  beginning  of  1696  passed  an  act  against  the  atheistical 
opinions  of  the  Deists,  which  received  a  melancholy  comment  in  an  occurrence  which  took 
place  during  the  same  year.  A  student  of  eighteen,  named  Thomas  Aikenhead,  had  un- 
fortunately imbibed  sceptical  opinions,  and  had  been  imprudent  enough  to  spout  them  to 
some  of  his  companions.  Trinity  in  unity,  he  said,  was  a  contradiction.  Moses  had  learned 
magic  in  Egypt,  and  this  was  the  secret  of  his  miracles.  Ezra  was  the  author  of  the  Penta- 
teuch ;  Theanthropas  was  as  great  an  absurdity  as  Hirco-Cervus.  These  sceptical  common- 
places reached  the  ears  of  the  authorities,  and  the  youth  was  indicted  under  an  old  statute 
which  made  it  a  capital  crime  to  curse  the  Supreme  Being.  He  was  convicted  and  sentenced 
to  be  hanged.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  poor  lad  with  death  before  his  eyes,  recanted  his 
errors  and  begged  for  his  life.  Even  a  reprieve  for  a  few  days  was  denied  him,  and  the 
clergy  of  the  city  .  .  .  gave  their  voice  for  his  death.  He  died  with  a  Bible  in  his  hand 
in  token  of  his  change  of  mind. — Cunningham,  Church  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii.,  pp. 
197,  198. 

11  Hodge,  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America,  pp.  47-50. 

12  The  enormities  of  this  detestable  government  are  far  too  numerous,  even  in  species, 
to  be  enumerated  in  this  slight  sketch  ;  and  of  course,  most  instances  of  cruelty  have  not 
been  recorded.  The  privy  council  was  accustomed  to  extort  confessions  by  torture — that 
grim  divan  of  bishops,  lawyers,  and  peers,  sucking  the  groans  of  each  undaunted  enthusiast, 
in  hopes  that  some  imperfect  avowal  might  lead  to  the  sacrifice  of  other  victims,  or  at  least 
warrant  the  execution  of  the  present.  ...  It  was  very  possible  that  Episcopacy  might 
be  of  apostolical  institution  ;  but  for  this  institution  houses  had  been  burned  and  fields  laid 
waste,  and  the  gospel  been  preached  in  the  wilderness,  and  its  ministers  had  been  shot  in 
their  prayers,  and  husbands  had  been  murdered  before  their  wives,  and  virgins  had  been  de- 
filed, and  many  had  died  by  the  executioner,  and  by  massacre,  and  imprisonment,  and  in 
exile  and  slavery,  and  women  had  been  tied  to  stakes  on  the  sea-shore  till  the  tide  rose  to 
overflow  them,  and  some  had  been  tortured  and  mutilated  ;  it  was  a  religion  of  the  boots 
and  the  thumbscrew,  which  a  good  man  must  be  very  cool-blooded  indeed  if  he  did  not  hate 
and  reject  from  the  hands  which  offered  it.  For,  after  all,  it  is  much  more  certain  that  the 
Supreme  Being  abhors  cruelty  and  persecution,  than  that  he  has  set  up  bishops  to  have  a 
superiority  over  Presbyters. — Hallam,  Constitutional  History,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  435,  442.  The 
wonderful  subserviency  and  degradation  of  the  Scottish  parliament  during  this  period  must 
strike  all  readers  with  astonishment.  This  fact  is  partially  explained,  and  the  disgrace  in 
some  measure  palliated  by  the  peculiarity  of  its  constitution.  The  controlling  power  was 
virtually  in  the  hands  of  the  bishops,  who  were  the  creatures,  and  of  course,  the  servants  of 
the  crown.  The  lords  of  the  articles  were  originally  a  committee  chosen  by  the  parliament 
for  the  preparation  of  business.  But  Charles  I,  without  any  authority  from  parliament,  had 
the  matter  so  arranged,  that  "the  bishops  chose  eight  peers,  the  peers  eight  bishops ;  and 
these  appointed  sixteen  commissioners  of  shires  and  boroughs.  Thus  the  whole  power  was 
devolved  upon  the  bishops,  the  slaves  and  sycophants  of  the  crown.  The  parliament  itself 
met  only  on  two  days,  the  first  and  last  of  their  pretended  session,  the  one  time  to  choose 
the  lords  of  the  articles,  the  other  to  ratify  what  they  proposed." — Hallam,  vol.  iii.f  p.  428. 
This  arrangement  was  renewed  after  the  restoration  of  Charles  II. 

13  "  So  soon  as  it  was  known  in  Scotland  that  William  of  Orange  had  landed  at  Torbay  ; 
that  he  was  slowly  advancing  toward  London  ;  that  the  English  nobility  were  flocking  to  him  ; 
that  the  royal  army  was  deserting  to  him,  that  the  bewildered  James  had  attempted  to  flee 
the  country,  the  people  began  to  show  how  ready  they  were  to  concur  with  the  prince  in 
shaking  off  the  burdens  under  which  they  had  groaned. 

"  Meanwhile  there  were  wild  rumors  afloat  of  an  army  of  Irish  Papists  that  had  landed, 
or  was  about  to  land,  on  the  coast  of  Galloway.  Some  said  it  was  already  at  Kirkcudbright 
and  had  burned  it.  .  .  .  In  such  times  rumors  are  rife.  People  began  to  dread  a 
massacre.     The  Council  had  dissolved.      The  military  had  been  marched  into   England. 


The  Scottish  Kirk  119 

There  was  a  dissolution  of  all  authority.  The  peasantry  of  the  western  counties  began  to 
collect  in  large  crowds,  armed  with  such  weapons  as  they  could  procure,  and  to  take  the  law 
into  their  own  hands.  Their  wrath  vented  itself  on  the  unhappy  curates.  They  resolved  to 
purge  the  temple  of  them  without  waiting  for  the  decision  of  the  legislature.  They  began 
their  work  upon  Christmas,  which  seems  to  have  been  thought  an  appropriate  day.  In  some 
cases  the  curates  saved  themselves  from  insult  by  timely  flight.  In  other  cases  they  were 
laid  hold  of  by  the  rabble,  carried  about  in  mock  procession,  had  their  gowns  torn  over  their 
heads,  their  Prayer-Books  burned  before  their  eyes,  and  then  were  told  to  be  off,  and  never 
to  show  themselves  in  the  parish  again.  When  done  with  the  minister,  the  mob  frequently 
entered  the  manse,  tumbled  the  furniture  out  at  the  windows,  marched  the  inmates  to  the 
door,  took  possession  of  the  keys  ;  and  on  next  Sunday  a  preacher  who  had  till  lately  been 
skulking  among  the  hills,  was  found  in  the  pulpit  thundering  against  persecuting  prelatists. 
These  rabblings  went  on  for  two  or  three  months  ;  every  now  and  then  an  instance  was 
occurring  till  almost  every  parish  in  the  south  and  west  was  cleaned  of  its  Episcopal  in- 
cumbent. Upwards  of  two  hundred  clergymen  were  thus  rabbled  out  of  their  manses,  their 
parishes,  and  their  livings  (Somers's  Tracts,  coll.  iii.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  133.  "Case  of  the  Epis- 
copal Clergy  in  Scotland  Truly  Represented."  "  Case  of  the  Afflicted  Clergy,"  etc.,  Burnet's 
History,  vol.  ii.,  p.  444). 

"  The  wives  and  families  of  these  men  shared  in  their  misfortunes.  Many  must  have  been 
rendered  homeless  ;  some  reduced  to  absolute  beggary.  .  .  .  Still  no  life  was  lost.  The 
only  martyrdom  these  men  underwent  was  a  little  rough  usage  from  an  ignorant  rabble,  and 
the  loss  of  their  livings.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  the  districts  of  the  country 
where  these  things  happened  the  curates  occupied  their  pulpits  in  opposition  to  the  will  of 
the  people,  and  enjoyed  stipends  of  which  others  had  been  tyrannically  deprived.  They  had 
no  root  in  the  soil  ;  they  were  aliens  in  their  own  parishes.  What  is  more,  they  were  sus- 
pected of  having  abetted  the  persecution  of  those  who  preferred  their  old  Presbyterian 
ministers  to  them.  They  had  their  roll  of  absentees  from  church  to  hand  to  the  military 
officers  commanding  in  the  district.     .     . 

4 '  For  twenty-five  long  years,  the  Presbyterians  had  been  cruelly  oppressed  ;  and  yet  when: 
times  of  revolution  came,  they  did  not  rise  and  murder  their  oppressors.  Even  the  rabblings 
were  conducted  chiefly  by  the  Cameronians  and  the  lowest  of  the  people,  and  many  of  the 
Presbyterians  strongly  condemned  them. " — Cunningham,  Church  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii., 
pp.  1 51-153. 

M  See  Appendix  R  (The  Scottish  Martyrs.) 


CHAPTER  IX 
RELIGION  IN  EARLY  SCOTLAND  AND  EARLY  ENGLAND 

THE  real  differences  between  the  religious  life  of  Scotland  and  that  of 
England  are  not  wholly  those  of  creed  and  polity,  brought  about  by 
the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century.  They  would  seem  to  go  back 
much  farther  than  that  period,  and  to  have  given  evidence  of  existence 
more  than  nine  hundred  years  before.  They  may  have  originated  from  the 
radical  differences  between  the  ancient  pagan  mythology  of  the  Druids  and 
that  of  the  Teutons.  The  religious  genius  of  early  Scotland  was,  of  course, 
largely  Celtic,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  believing  that  the  more  or  less 
complete  but  very  gradual  amalgamation  of  the  early  race  with  that  of  the 
Norse  and  the  Angle  has  essentially  altered  the  inherent  racial  tendency  to- 
ward emotional  fervor  and  intensity.  Going  from  a  warmer  climate  into 
the  comparatively  bleak  and  northern  country  of  Caledonia,  the  early  Celt 
doubtless  became  more  "  hard-headed,"  and  lost  much  of  that  exuberance 
of  emotion  which  to-day  is  so  characteristic  of  his  cousins  in  France  and 
Ireland,  and,  perhaps,  also  in  Wales.  His  peculiar  traits  were  modified  later 
by  the  commingling  of  his  blood  with  that  of  the  Northmen.  But  his  early 
racial  point  of  view  was  far  distant  from  that  of  the  pagans  who  brought  the 
worship  of  Woden  into  Britain,  and  the  assimilating  influences  of  climate 
and  intermarriage,  even  to  this  day,  have  not  sufficed  to  break  down  the  bar- 
rier between  the  two  cults.  Christianity  was  probably  planted  in  Great 
Britain  long  before  the  Romans  left.  The  first  native  account  we  have  of 
its  early  history  there  is  that  of  Bede,  in  his  allusions  to  the  conversion 
(176-190)  of  Lucius,  King  of  the  Britons,  and  to  the  establishment  by  Ninian 
of  the  Church  of  Candida  Casa  at  Whithorn,  in  Galloway.  This  foundation 
is  supposed  to  have  been  made  about  the  year  397,  and  Ninian  (who  died 
about  432)  was  therefore  the  precursor  and  contemporary  of  St.  Patrick  (396- 
469  ?).  More  than  a  hundred  and  sixty  years  later,  Columba,  the  Scot,  came 
from  the  island  of  Iona  to  North  Britain,  and  converted  the  Picts,  as  Bede 
tells  us  in  the  following  passage  (Ecd.  Hist.,  bk.  iii.,  ch.  iv.)  : 

In  the  year  of  our  Lord  565,  when  Justin,  the  younger,  the  successor  of 
Justinian,  had  the  government  of  the  Roman  Empire,  there  came  into  Brit- 
ain a  famous  priest  and  abbat,  a  monk  by  habit  and  life,  whose  name  was 
Columba,  to  preach  the  word  of  God  to  the  provinces  of  the  northern  Picts, 
who  are  separated  from  the  southern  parts  by  steep  and  rugged  mountains  ; 
for  the  southern  Picts,  who  dwell  on  this  side  of  those  mountains,  had  long 
before,  as  is  reported,  forsaken  the  errors  of  idolatry,  and  embraced  the 
truth,  by  the  preaching  of  Ninias,  a  most  reverend  bishop  and  holy  man  of 
the  British  nation,  who  had  been  regularly  instructed  at  Rome,  in  the  faith 
and  mysteries  of  the  truth  ;  whose  episcopal  see,  named  after  St.  Martin  the 

120 


Religion  121 

bishop,  and  famous  for  a  stately  church,  (wherein  he  and  many  other  saints 
rest  in  the  body,)  is  still  in  existence  among  the  English  nation.  The  place 
belongs  to  the  province  of  the  Bernicians,  and  is  generally  called  the  White 
House,  because  he  there  built  a  church  of  stone,  which  was  not  usual  among 
the  Britons. 

Columba  came  into  Britain  in  the  ninth  year  of  the  reign  of  Bridius,  who 
was  the  son  of  Meilochon,  and  the  powerful  king  of  the  Pictish  nation,  and 
he  converted  that  nation  to  the  faith  of  Christ,  by  his  preaching  and  exam- 
ple, whereupon  he  also  received  of  them  the  aforesaid  island  for  a  monas- 
tery, for  it  is  not  very  large,  but  contains  about  five  families,  according  to 
the  English  computation.  His  successors  hold  the  island  to  this  day  ;  he 
was  also  buried  therein,  having  died  at  the  age  of  seventy-seven,  about 
thirty-two  years  after  he  came  into  Britain  to  preach.  Before  he  passed 
over  into  Britain,  he  had  built  a  noble  monastery  in  Ireland,  which,  from 
the  great  number  of  oaks,  is  in  the  Scottish  tongue  called  Dearm-ach  —  The 
Field  of  Oaks  [now  Derry].  From  both  which  monasteries,  many  others  had 
their  beginning  through  his  disciples,  both  in  Britain  and  Ireland  ;  but  the 
monastery  in  the  island  where  his  body  lies,  is  the  principal  of  them  all. 

Columba's  religion  was  the  same  as  that  of  St.  Patrick.  It  had  been 
brought  from  the  East  at  a  time  when  the  early  Church  retained  its  primitive 
simplicity,  and  before  it  had  become  corrupted  through  the  acquisition  of 
that  temporal  power  which  came  to  it  upon  the  dissolution  of  the  Roman 
Empire.1 

The  English  were  converted  by  St.  Augustine,  who  came  from  Rome  to 
Britain  in  597."  He  was  followed  in  625  by  Paulinus.  The  success  of 
their  missions  is  related  by  Bede  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  bk.  i.,  ch. 
xxv.,  and  bk.  ii.,  ch.  ix. 

The  first  conflict  between  the  primitive  Christianity  of  the  Celts  and  the 
more  secularized  ecclesiasticism  of  Rome  occurred  in  England  about  the 
year  604,  and  in  all  its  aspects  is  typical  of  the  struggle  which  took  place  in 
North  Britain  between  the  latter-day  representatives  of  the  two  systems  in 
the  time  of  the  Stuarts.     Bede's  narrative,3  therefore,  needs  no  commentary  : 

In  the  meantime,  Augustine,  with  the  assistance  of  King  Ethelbert,  drew 
together  to  a  conference  the  bishops,  or  doctors,  of  the  next  province  of  the 
Britons,  at  a  place  which  is  to  this  day  called  Augustine's  Ac,  that  is,  Au- 
gustine's Oak,  on  the  borders  of  the  Wiccii  and  West  Saxons  ;  and  began 
by  brotherly  admonitions  to  persuade  them,  that  preserving  Catholic  unity 
with  him,  they  should  undertake  the  common  labour  of  preaching  the  Gos- 
pel to  the  Gentiles.  For  they  did  not  keep  Easter  Sunday  at  the  proper 
time,  but  from  the  fourteenth  to  the  twentieth  moon  ;  which  computation  is 
contained  in  a  revolution  of  eighty-four  years.  Besides,  they  did  several 
other  things  which  were  against  the  unity  of  the  church.4  When,  after  a 
long  disputation,  they  did  not  comply  with  the  entreaties,  exhortations,  or 
rebukes  of  Augustine  and  his  companions,  but  preferred  their  own  traditions 
before  all  the  churches  in  the  world,  which  in  Christ  agree  among  them- 
selves, the  holy  father,  Augustine,  put  an  end  to  this  troublesome  and  tedious 
contention,  saying,  "  Let  us  beg  of  God,  who  causes  those  who  are  of  one 
mind  to  live  in  his  Father's  house,  that  he  will  vouchsafe,  by  his  heavenly  to- 
kens, to  declare  to  us,  which  tradition  is  to  be  followed  ;  and  by  what  means 


122  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

we  are  to  find  our  way  to  his  heavenly  kingdom.  Let  some  infirm  person  be 
brought,  and  let  the  faith  and  practice  of  those,  by  whose  prayers  he  shall 
be  healed,  be  looked  upon  as  acceptable  to  God,  and  be  adopted  by  all." 
The  adverse  party  unwillingly  consenting,  a  blind  man  of  the  English  race 
was  brought,  who  having  been  presented  to  the  priests  of  the  Britons,  found 
no  benefit  or  cure  from  their  ministry  ;  at  length,  Augustine,  compelled  by 
real  necessity,  bowed  his  knees  to  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  pray- 
ing that  the  lost  sight  might  be  restored  to  the  blind  man,  and  by  the  corpo- 
real enlightening  of  one  man,  the  light  of  spiritual  grace  might  be  kindled 
in  the  hearts  of  many  of  the  faithful.  Immediately  the  blind  man  received 
sight,  and  Augustine  was  by  all  declared  the  preacher  of  the  Divine  truth. 
The  Britons  then  confessed,  that  it  was  the  true  way  of  righteousness  which 
Augustine  taught ;  but  that  they  could  not  depart  from  their  ancient  customs 
without  the  consent  and  leave  of  their  people.  They  therefore  desired  that 
a  second  synod  might  be  appointed,  at  which  more  of  their  number  would 
be  present. 

This  being  decreed,  there  came  (as  is  asserted)  seven  bishops  of  Britons, 
and  many  most  learned  men,  particularly  from  their  most  noble  monastery, 
which,  in  the  English  tongue,  is  called  Bancornburg  [Bangor],  over  which 
the  Abbat  Dunooth  is  said  to  have  presided  at  that  time.  They  that  were 
to  go  to  the  aforesaid  council,  repaired  first  to  a  certain  holy  and  discreet 
man,  who  was  wont  to  lead  an  eremitical  life  among  them,  advising  with 
him,  whether  they  ought,  at  the  preaching  of  Augustine,  to  forsake  their  tra- 
ditions. He  answered,  "  If  he  is  a  man  of  God,  follow  him." — "  How  shall 
we  know  that  ?  "  said  they.  He  replied,  "  Our  Lord  saith,  *  Take  my  yoke 
upon  you,  and  learn  of  me,  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart ' ;  if  there- 
fore, Augustine  is  meek  and  lowly  of  heart,  it  is  to  be  believed  that  he  has 
taken  upon  him  the  yoke  of  Christ,  and  offers  the  same  to  you  to  take 
upon  you.  But,  if  he  is  stern  and  haughty,  it  appears  that  he  is  not  of 
God,  nor  are  we  to  regard  his  words."  They  insisted  again,  "  And  how 
shall  we  discern  even  this  ? " — "  Do  you  contrive,"  said  the  anchorite,  "  that 
he  may  first  arrive  with  his  company  at  the  place  where  the  synod  is  to  be 
held  ;  and  if  at  your  approach  he  shall  rise  up  to  you,  hear  him  submissively, 
being  assured  that  he  is  the  servant  of  Christ ;  but  if  he  shall  despise  you, 
and  not  rise  up  to  you,  whereas  you  are  more  in  number,  let  him  also  be  de- 
spised by  you." 

They  did  as  he  directed ;  and  it  happened,  that  when  they  came,  Augus- 
tine was  sitting  on  a  chair,  which  they  observing,  were  in  a  passion,  and 
charging  him  with  pride,  endeavoured  to  contradict  all  he  said.  He  said  to 
them,  "  You  act  in  many  particulars  contrary  to  our  custom,  or  rather  the 
custom  of  the  universal  church,  and  yet,  if  you  will  comply  with  me  in 
these  three  points,  viz.,  to  keep  Easter  at  the  due  time  ;  to  administer  bap- 
tism, by  which  we  are  again  born  to  God,  according  to  the  custom  of  the 
holy  Roman  Apostolic  Church  ;  and  jointly  with  us  to  preach  the  word  of 
God  to  the  English  nation,  we  will  readily  tolerate  all  the  other  things  you 
do,  though  contrary  to  our  customs."  They  answered  they  would  do  none 
of  those  things,  nor  receive  him  as  their  archbishop;  for  they  alleged  among 
themselves,  that "  if  he  would  not  now  rise  up  to  us,  how  much  more  will  he 
contemn  us,  as  of  no  worth,  if  we  shall  begin  to  be  under  his  subjection  ?  "  To 
whom  the  man  of  God,  Augustine,  is  said,  in  a  threatening  manner,  to  have 
foretold,  that  in  case  they  would  not  join  in  unity  with  their  brethren,  they 
should  be  warred  upon  by  their  enemies  ;  and,  if  they  would  not  preach 
the  way  of  life  to  the  English  nation,  they  should  at  their  hands  undergo  the 


Religion  123 

vengeance  of  death.     All  which,  through  the  dispensation  of  the  Divine 
judgment,  fell  out  exactly  as  he  had  predicted. 

For  afterwards  the  warlike  king  of  the  English,  Ethelfrid,  of  whom  we 
have  already  spoken,  having  raised  a  mighty  army,  made  a  very  great 
slaughter  of  that  perfidious  nation,  at  the  City  of  Legions,  which  by  the 
English  is  called  Legacestir,  but  by  the  Britons  more  rightly  Carlegion 
[Chester].  Being  about  to  give  battle,  he  observed  their  priests,  who  were 
come  together  to  offer  up  their  prayers  to  God  for  the  soldiers,  standing 
apart  in  a  place  of  more  safety  ;  he  inquired  who  they  were  ?  or  what  they 
came  together  to  do  in  that  place  ?  Most  of  them  were  of  the  monastery  of 
Bangor  in  which,  it  is  reported,  there  was  so  great  a  number  of  monks,  that 
the  monastery  being  divided  into  seven  parts,  with  a  ruler  over  each,  none 
of  those  parts  contained  less  than  three  hundred  men,  who  all  lived  by  the 
labour  of  their  hands.  Many  of  these,  having  observed  a  fast  of  three  days, 
resorted  among  others  to  pray  at  the  aforesaid  battle,  having  one  Brocmail 
appointed  for  their  protector,  to  defend  them  whilst  they  were  intent  upon 
their  prayers,  against  the  swords  of  the  barbarians.  King  Ethelfrid  being 
informed  of  the  occasion  of  their  coming,  said,  "  If  then  they  cry  to  their 
God  against  us,  in  truth,  though  they  do  not  bear  arms,  yet  they  fight 
against  us,  because  they  oppose  us  by  their  prayers."  He,  therefore,  com- 
manded them  to  be  attacked  first,  and  then  destroyed  the  rest  of  the  impious 
army,  not  without  considerable  loss  of  his  own  forces.  About  twelve  hun- 
dred of  those  that  came  to  pray  are  said  to  have  been  killed,  and  only  fifty 
to  have  escaped  by  flight.  Brocmail  turning  his  back  with  his  men,  at  the 
first  approach  of  the  enemy,  left  those  whom  he  ought  to  have  defended,  un- 
armed and  exposed  to  the  swords  of  the  enemies.  Thus  was  fulfilled  the 
prediction  of  the  holy  Bishop  Augustine,  though  he  himself  had  been  long 
before  taken  up  into  the  heavenly  kingdom  ;  that  those  perfidious  men 
should  feel  the  vengeance  of  temporal  death  also,  because  they  had  despised 
the  offer  of  eternal  salvation. 

In  Northumbria,  also,  some  of  the  Scottish  missionaries,  later,  had 
labored  and  made  converts.  When  King  Oswy  was  asked  to  join  the  com- 
munion of  Rome,  the  Scots  sought  to  have  him  continue  in  their  own  as  being 
that  of  the  more  ancient  British  Church.  He  accordingly  appointed  a 
synod  to  be  held  at  Whitby  in  the  year  664,  and  there,  like  James  I.  at  the 
Hampton  Court  Conference  940  years  later,  the  king  was  won  over  by  the 
"  superior  arguments  "  of  the  bishops  and  decided  to  accept  their  innova- 
tions, and  to  give  up  the  less  formal  and  more  primitive  church  system  of 
the  Scots.  For  the  account  of  this  conference  let  us  again  have  recourse 
to  Bede6: 

In  the  meantime,  Bishop  Aidan  being  dead,  Finan,  who  was  ordained  and 
sent  by  the  Scots,  succeeded  him  in  the  bishopric,  and  built  a  church  in  the 
Isle  of  Lindisfarne,  the  episcopal  see;  nevertheless,  after  the  manner  of  the 
Scots,  he  made  it,  not  of  stone,  but  of  hewn  oak,  and  covered  it  with  reeds; 
and  the  same  was  afterwards  dedicated  in  honour  of  St.  Peter  the  Apostle,  by 
the  reverend  Archbishop  Theodore.  Eadbert,  also  bishop  of  that  place, 
took  off  the  thatch,  and  covered  it,  both  roof  and  walls,  with  plates  of  lead. 

At  this  time,  a  great  and  frequent  controversy  happened  about  the  ob- 
servance of  Easter,  those  that  came  from  Kent  or  France  affirming,  that  the 


124  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Scots  kept  Easter  Sunday  contrary  to  the  custom  of  the  universal  church. 
Among  them  was  a  most  zealous  defender  of  the  true  Easter,  whose  name 
was  Ronan,  a  Scot  by  nation,  but  instructed  in  ecclesiastical  truth,  either 
in  France  or  Italy,  who,  disputing  with  Finan,  convinced  many,  or  at  least 
induced  them  to  make  a  more  strict  inquiry  after  the  truth;  yet  he  could 
not  prevail  upon  Finan,  but,  on  the  contrary,  made  him  the  more  inveterate 
by  reproof,  and  a  professed  opposer  of  the  truth,  being  of  a  hot  and  violent 
temper.  James,  formerly  the  deacon  of  the  venerable  Archbishop  Paulinus, 
as  has  been  said  above,  kept  the  true  and  Catholic  Easter,  with  all  those 
that  he  could  persuade  to  adopt  the  right  way.  Queen  Eanfleda  and  her 
followers  also  observed  the  same  as  she  had  seen  practised  in  Kent,  having 
with  her  a  Kentish  priest  that  followed  the  Catholic  mode,  whose  name  was 
Romanus.  Thus  it  is  said  to  have  happened  in  those  times  that  Easter  was 
twice  kept  in  one  year;  and  that  when  the  king  having  ended  the  time  of 
fasting,  kept  his  Easter,  the  queen  and  her  followers  were  still  fasting  and 
celebrating  Palm  Sunday.  This  difference  about  the  observance  of  Easter, 
whilst  Aidan  lived,  was  patiently  tolerated  by  all  men,  as  being  sensible, 
that  though  he  could  not  keep  Easter  contrary  to  the  custom  of  those  who 
had  sent  him,  yet  he  industriously  laboured  to  practise  all  works  of  faith, 
piety,  and  love,  according  to  the  custom  of  all  holy  men;  for  which  reason 
he  was  deservedly  beloved  by  all,  even  by  those  who  differed  in  opinion 
concerning  Easter,  and  was  held  in  veneration,  not  only  by  indifferent  per- 
sons, but  even  by  the  bishops,  Honorius  of  Canterbury,  and  Felix  of  the 
East  Angles. 

But  after  the  death  of  Finan,  who  succeeded  him,  when  Colman,  who 
was  also  sent  out  of  Scotland,  came  to  be  bishop,  a  greater  controversy  arose 
about  the  observance  of  Easter,  and  the  rules  of  ecclesiastical  life.  Where- 
upon this  dispute  began  naturally  to  influence  the  thoughts  and  hearts  of 
many,  who  feared,  lest  having  received  the  name  of  Christians,  they  might 
happen  to  run,  or  to  have  run,  in  vain.  This  reached  the  ears  of  King 
Oswy  and  his  son  Alfrid;  for  Oswy,  having  been  instructed  and  baptized 
by  the  Scots,  and  being  very  perfectly  skilled  in  their  language,  thought 
nothing  better  than  what  they  taught.  But  Alfrid,  having  been  instructed 
in  Christianity  by  Wilfrid,  a  most  learned  man,  who  had  first  gone  to 
Rome  to  learn  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  and  spent  much  time  at  Lyons 
with  Dalfin,  archbishop  of  France,  from  whom  also  he  had  received  the 
ecclesiastical  tonsure,  rightly  thought  this  man's  doctrine  ought  to  be  pre- 
ferred before  all  the  traditions  of  the  Scots.  For  this  reason  he  had  also 
given  him  a  monastery  of  forty  families,  at  a  place  called  Rhypum;  which 
place,  not  long  before,  he  had  given  to  those  that  followed  the  system  of 
the  Scots  for  a  monastery;  but  forasmuch  as  they  afterwards,  being  left  to 
their  choice,  prepared  to  quit  the  place  rather  than  alter  their  opinion,  he  gave 
the  place  to  him,  whose  life  and  doctrine  were  worthy  of  it. 

Agilbert,  bishop  of  the  West  Saxons,  above-mentioned,  a  friend  to  King 
Alfrid  and  to  Abbat  Wilfrid,  had  at  that  time  come  into  the  province  of  the 
Northumbrians,  and  was  making  some  stay  among  them;  at  the  request  of 
Alfrid,  made  Wilfrid  a  priest  in  his  monastery.  He  had  in  his  company  a 
priest,  whose  name  was  Agatho.  The  controversy  being  there  started,  con- 
cerning Easter,  or  the  tonsure,  or  other  ecclesiastical  affairs,  it  was  agreed, 
that  a  synod  should  be  held  in  the  monastery  of  Streanehalch,  which  signi- 
fies the  Bay  of  the  Lighthouse,  where  the  Abbess  Hilda,  a  woman  devoted 
to  God,  then  presided;  and  that  there  this  controversy  should  be  decided. 
The  kings,  both  father  and  son,  came  thither,  Bishop  Colman   with   his 


Religion  125 

Scottish  clerks,  and  Agilbert  with  the  priests  Agatho  and  Wilfrid  ;  James 
and  Romanus  were  on  their  side;  but  the  Abbess  Hilda  and  her  followers 
were  for  the  Scots,  as  was  also  the  venerable  Bishop  Cedd,  long  before 
ordained  by  the  Scots,  as  has  been  said  above,  and  he  was  in  that  council  a 
most  careful  interpreter  for  both  parties. 

King  Oswy  first  observed,  that  it  behoved  those  who  served  one  God 
to  observe  the  same  rule  of  life;  and  as  they  all  expected  the  same  kingdom 
in  heaven,  so  they  ought  not  to  differ  in  the  celebration  of  the  Divine  mys- 
teries; but  rather  to  inquire  which  was  the  truest  tradition,  that  the  same 
might  be  followed  by  all;  he  then  commanded  his  bishop,  Colman,  first  to 
declare  what  the  custom  was  which  he  observed,  and  whence  it  derived  its- 
origin.  Then  Colman  said:  "The  Easter  which  I  keep,  I  received  from 
my  elders,  who  sent  me  bishop  hither;  all  our  forefathers,  men  beloved  of 
God,  are  known  to  have  kept  it  after  the  same  manner;  and  that  the  same 
may  not  seem  to  any  contemptible  or  worthy  to  be  rejected,  it  is  the  same 
which  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  the  disciple  beloved  of  our  Lord,  with  all 
the  churches  over  which  he  presided,  is  recorded  to  have  observed."  Hav- 
ing said  thus  much,  and  more  to  the  like  effect,  the  king  commanded  Agil- 
bert to  show  whence  his  custom  of  keeping  Easter  was  derived,  or  on  what 
authority  it  was  grounded.  Agilbert  answered  :  "  I  desire  that  my  disciple, 
the  priest  Wilfrid,  may  speak  in  my  stead ;  because  we  both  concur  with 
the  other  followers  of  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  that  are  here  present,  and 
he  can  better  explain  our  opinion  in  the  English  language,  than  I  can  by  an 
interpreter." 

Then  Wilfrid,  being  ordered  by  the  king  to  speak,  delivered  himself 
thus: — "  The  Easter  which  we  observe,  we  saw  celebrated  by  all  at  Rome, 
where  the  blessed  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  lived,  taught,  suffered,  and 
were  buried;  we  saw  the  same  done  in  Italy  and  in  France,  when  we  trav- 
elled through  those  countries  for  pilgrimage  and  prayer.  We  found  the 
same  practised  in  Africa,  Asia,  Egypt,  Greece,  and  all  the  world,  wherever 
the  church  of  Christ  is  spread  abroad  through  several  nations  and  tongues, 
at  one  and  the  same  time;  except  only  these  and  their  accomplices  in  obsti- 
nacy, I  mean  the  Picts  and  the  Britons,  who  foolishly,  in  these  two  remote 
islands  of  the  world,  and  only  in  part  even  of  them,  oppose  all  the  rest  of 
the  universe. 

"  But  as  for  you,  Colman,  and  your  companions,  you  certainly  sin,  if,  hav- 
ing heard  the  decrees  of  the  Apostolic  See,  and  of  the  universal  church,  and 
that  the  same  is  confirmed  by  holy  writ,  you  refuse  to  follow  them ;  for,  though 
your  fathers  were  holy,  do  you  think  that  their  small  number,  in  a  corner  of 
the  remotest  island,  is  to  be  preferred  before  the  universal  church  of  Christ 
throughout  the  world  ?  And  if  that  Columba  of  yours,  (and,  I  may  say,  ours 
also,  if  he  was  Christ's  servant,)  was  a  holy  man  and  powerful  in  miracles, 
yet  could  he  be  preferred  before  the  most  blessed  prince  of  the  apostles,  to 
whom  our  Lord  said,  '  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it,  and  to  thee  I  will 
give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  '  ?  " 

When  Wilfrid  had  spoken  thus,  the  king  said,  "  Is  it  true,  Colman,  that 
these  words  were  spoken  to  Peter  by  our  Lord  ?  "  He  answered,  "  It  is  true, 
O  king!  "  Then  says  he,  "  Can  you  show  any  such  power  given  to  your 
Columba?"  Colman  answered,  "None."  Then  added  the  king,  "Do 
you  both  agree  that  these  words  were  principally  directed  to  Peter,  and  that 
the  keys  of  heaven  were  given  to  him  by  our  Lord  ?  "  They  both  answered, 
"  We  do."     Then  the  king  concluded,  "  And  I  also  say  unto  you,  that  he 


126  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

is  the  door-keeper,  whom  I  will  not  contradict,  but  will,  as  far  as  I  know 
and  am  able,  in  all  things  obey  his  decrees,  lest,  when  I  come  to  the  gates 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  there  should  be  none  to  open  them,  he  being  my 
adversary  who  is  proved  to  have  the  keys."  The  king  having  said  this,  all 
present,  both  great  and  small,  gave  their  assent,  and  renouncing  the  more 
imperfect  institution,  resolved  to  conform  to  that  which  they  found  to  be 
better. 

The  disputation  being  ended,  and  the  company  broken  up,  Agilbert 
returned  home.  Colman,  perceiving  that  his  doctrine  was  rejected,  and  his 
sect  despised,  took  with  him  such  as  would  not  comply  with  the  Catholic 
-Easter  and  the  tonsure,  (for  there  was  much  controversy  about  that  also,) 
and  went  back  into  Scotland,  to  consult  with  his  people  what  was  to  be  done 
in  this  case.  Cedd,  forsaking  the  practices  of  the  Scots,  returned  to  his 
bishopric,  having  submitted  to  the  Catholic  observance  of  Easter.  This 
disputation  happened  in  the  year  of  our  Lord's  incarnation  664,  which  was 
the  twenty-second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Oswy,  and  the  thirtieth  of  the 
episcopacy  of  the  Scots  among  the  English;  for  Aidan  was  bishop  seventeen 
years,  Finan  ten,  and  Colman  three. 

The  matter  of  religion  came  up  again  in  North  Britain  in  717,  when 
Nechtan,  King  of  the  Picts,  yielding  to  the  southern  influence  then  becom- 
ing powerful  at  his  court,  accepted  the  tonsure,  and  replaced  the  Scottish 
clergy  with  that  of  Rome  (Bede,  bk.  v.,  ch.  xxi.): 

At  that  time,  [716]  Naitan,  king  of  the  Picts.  inhabiting  the  northern 
parts  of  Britain,  taught  by  frequent  meditation  on  the  ecclesiastical  writings, 
renounced  the  error  which  he  and  his  nation  had  till  then  been  under,  in 
relation  to  the  observance  of  Easter,  and  submitted,  together  with  his  peo- 
ple, to  celebrate  the  Catholic  time  of  our  Lord's  resurrection.  For  per- 
forming this  with  the  more  ease  and  greater  authority,  he  sought  assistance 
from  the  English,  whom  he  knew  to  have  long  since  formed  their  religion 
after  the  example  of  the  holy  Roman  Apostolic  Church.  Accordingly  he 
-sent  messengers  to  the  venerable  Ceolfrid,  abbat  of  the  monastery  of  the 
blessed  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  which  stands  at  the  mouth  of  the  river 
Wear,  and  near  the  river  Tyne,  at  the  place  called  J  arrow,  which  he  glori- 
ously governed  after  Benedict,  of  whom  we  have  before  spoken;  desiring 
that  he  would  write  him  a  letter  containing  arguments,  by  the  help  of  which 
he  might  the  better  confute  those  that  presumed  to  keep  Easter  out  of  the  due 
time;  as  also  concerning  the  form  and  manner  of  tonsure  for  distinguishing 
the  clergy;  not  to  mention  that  he  himself  possessed  much  information  in 
these  particulars.  He  also  prayed  to  have  architects  sent  him  to  build  a 
church  in  his  nation  after  the  Roman  manner,  promising  to  dedicate  the 
same  in  honour  of  St.  Peter,  the  prince  of  the  apostles,  and  that  he  and  all 
his  people  would  always  follow  the  custom  of  the  holy  Roman  Apostolic 
Church,  as  far  as  their  remoteness  from  the  Roman  language  and  nation 
would  allow.  The  reverend  Abbat  Ceolfrid,  complying  with  his  desires  and 
request,  sent  the  architects  he  desired. 

This  action  of  Nechtan,  as  we  shall  see  in  a  later  chapter,  had  a  great  deal 
to  do  in  bringing  about  the  ultimate  overthrow  of  the  Pictish  dynasty  by 
Kenneth  Mc Alpine,  and  the  re-installation  of  the  Scottish  forms  of  worship.8 
The  Roman  Church  was  set  up  in  Scotland  again  after  1068,  through  the 


Religion  127 

influence  of  Queen  Margaret7  and  during  the  feudal  period  of  Britain  it 
remained  in  the  ascendancy,  although  for  some  time  before  its  final  over- 
throw the  clergy  seem  to  have  lost  their  influence  with  the  masses.8 

Surely  it  is  more  reasonable  to  account  for  the  greater  influence  of  the 
early  Scottish  clergy  over  the  people  by  ascribing  it  to  their  less  autocratic 
manners  and  simpler  lives,  rather  than  to  "  Scottish  superstition." 

In  examining  into  the  differences  between  the  Scottish  and  English 
views  of  things  religious,  we  shall  find  also  that  they  have  ever  been  influ- 
enced and  controlled  by  the  diverse  forces  originating  from  differences  of 
race,  climate,  and  physical  environment.  Stated  broadly,  the  two  contrary 
social  systems  in  which  they  are  embodied  may  be  said  to  symbolize  the 
operation  of  two  important  but  opposing  influences  of  nature,  both  con- 
stantly working  for  the  development  and  betterment  of  the  race  of  man. 
These  influences  may  be  denominated,  for  lack  of  better  terms,  knowledge 
and  environment;  the  first,  perhaps,  closely  related  to  or  even  generated 
by  the  second,  yet,  nevertheless,  ceaselessly  exercising  itself  against  it,  and 
seeking  to  secure  its  subordination  and  control.  The  second,  as  constantly 
pursuing  its  blind  course,  and  except  in  so  far  as  it  is  guided  and  restrained 
by  the  first,  wholly  impassive  as  to  whether  its  casualties  elevate  or  ruin. 
One  comprehends  all  the  outward  material  forces  of  nature;  the  other,  the 
inherent  consciousness  of  organic  existence.  One  wields  the  fate-hammer 
of  life,  under  whose  blows  individual  character  is  either  shaped  into  a  noble 
and  beautiful  form,  or  beaten  into  a  base  and  ignoble  counterfeit.  The 
other  serves  both  as  a  die  and  a  buffer,  by  which  the  crushing  power  of  the 
hammer  is  at  the  same  time  moderated  and  rightly  directed.  These  two 
influences  constitute  the  mainsprings  of  action  in  mankind,  and  working  to- 
gether they  have  raised  man  so  far  above  the  level  of  the  first  created  being  as 
to  lead  us  to  infer  that  their  ultimate  accomplishment  may  some  day  realize 
all  the  latent  aspirations  of  the  human  soul.  The  social  organism  of  England, 
with  reference  to  the  individual,  is  not  unlike  the  phenomena  of  natural  en- 
vironment with  relation  to  its  effects  on  organic  life.  The  operation  of  the 
forces  of  both  proceeds  with  little  regard  to  the  value  of  the  unit.  Neither 
takes  account  of  the  individual  as  such,  but  only  through  his  relation  to  the 
whole,  and  then  under  certain  fixed  and  immutable  laws  governing  his  status 
with  respect  to  his  surroundings,  any  infraction  of  which  involves  immediate 
punishment.  In  both  cases  the  controlling  force  is  from  without.  In  Scot- 
land, on  the  other  hand,  the  individual  is  everything.  The  unit  instinctively 
seeks  to  stand  alone,  and  to  stand  up  as  a  unit  wherever  it  may  be  placed. 
Verily,  each  man  is  a  law  unto  himself;  although,  in  most  cases,  he  exer- 
cises sufficient  self-control  to  make  him  mindful  of  the  rights  of  his  neigh: 
bor.  In  that  way,  the  Scot  practically  rises  above  the  restrictions  of  set 
forms  of  law,  or  stipulated  rules  of  conduct.  In  his  case  there  is  little 
necessity  for  these  restrictions.  In  express  terms,  he  governs  himself  and  is 
no  longer  the  slave  to  his  political  or  social  environment,  but  independent  of 


128  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

it,  if  not  its  master.  Conscience  has  become  the  touchstone  to  character, 
and  the  controlling  force  is  from  within. 

In  a  broader  sense,  these  distinctions  apply  to  the  whole  scheme  of  man's 
development.  In  the  evolution  of  human  society  the  joint  work  of  this  in- 
ward and  outward  force  may  well  be  traced  in  the  phenomena  of  war  and 
labor. 

War  is  the  natural  environment  of  society,  ever  threatening  its  destruc- 
tion :  industrial  activity,  or  labor,  is  the  inherent  safeguard  of  society,  and  its 
heritage  from  the  slave.  The  transition  of  the  European  proletariat  from  a 
state  of  savagery  to  one  of  civilized  industry  began  with  the  subjection  of  con- 
quered peoples  by  Grecian  and  Roman  warriors  ;  and  had  it  not  been  for  the 
universal  spread  of  slavery  which  took  place  under  the  Roman  Empire,  the 
civilization  of  the  Caucasian  to-day  might  differ  but  little  from  that  of  his 
darker-skinned  brothers  the  world  over.  It  was  through  slavery  that  natural 
man,  constrained,  first  learned  to  toil,  and  so  began  to  work  out  the  salvation 
of  his  race.  The  twin  supporting  pillars  of  ancient  society  were  predatory 
warfare  and  the  enslavement,  or  robbery,  of  labor.  On  these  the  fabric  of 
Roman  power  and  civilization  mainly  rested.  Taken  together,  they  likewise 
formed  the  chief  corner-stone  of  the  institution  of  feudalism.  Naturally,  there- 
fore, they  became,  in  part,  the  inheritance  of  Rome's  chief  legatee  and  feudal- 
ism's great  ally,  master,  and  successor  —  the  Church  of  the  Middle  Ages.9  In 
the  childhood  of  the  world,  man's  instinct,  begotten  of  experience,  became 
sufficiently  developed  to  enable  him  to  guard  against  the  ordinary  destructive 
forces  of  nature.  But  instinct  alone  was  powerless  to  save  his  race  from  the 
terrible  agency  invoked  when  some,  desiring  to  reap  where  they  had  not  sown, 
made  war  on  their  fellow-men.  It  then  became  necessary  for  men  to  battle, 
and  the  victory  always  went  to  the  stronger.  The  killing  of  the  vanquished, 
which  in  the  early  days  of  the  race  would  appear  to  have  been  common 
both  in  plundering  and  in  bullying  warfare,  would  largely  tend  to  prevent 
population  from  increasing  beyond  a  point  where  the  natural  products  of  the 
earth  and  the  prey  of  the  hunter  were  sufficient  to  sustain  it.  In  the  occa- 
sional sparing  of  female  lives  and  the  carrying  off  and  subsequent  debase- 
ment of  an  enemy's  women-folk  doubtless  is  to  be  found  the  origin  of 
human  slavery.  After  that,  men's  lives  came  at  times  to  be  spared,  and 
domestic  slavery  was  instituted.10  From  this  it  was  but  a  few  steps  to  in- 
dustrial slavery,  and  then  began  the  operation  of  those  influences  which 
have  since  produced  our  modern  civilization.  As  men  were  conquered  and 
enslaved  the  necessity  for  war  grew  less  imperative;  and  as  men  began  to 
labor  and  to  reap,  the  value  of  a  man's  life  became  greater  and  life's  prob- 
lems took  on  a  new  meaning.  Hundreds  of  years  after  the  building  of  the 
pyramids  man  was  still  learning  the  lesson  of  patience  and  endurance,  of 
labor  and  of  hope,  of  right  and  of  wrong,  under  the  lash  of  the  taskmaster, 
at  the  oar  of  the  galley,  or  in  the  ranks  of  his  lord's  army.  In  time,  warriors 
came  to  see  the  superior  advantages  of  peace,  and  indiscriminate  warfare 


Religion  129 

ceased.  Conscience  was  born  and  free  labor  inaugurated.  As  the  moral 
sense  developed,  the  lot  of  the  slave  became  less  hard.  Laws  were  made  to 
mitigate  the  suffering  of  the  oppressed.  Gradually  the  form  of  slavery  was 
modified,  and  ultimately  it  was  changed  to  serfdom,  vassalage,  and  tenantry. 
Finally  its  most  objectionable  features  were  done  away  with,  and  to-day  they 
practically  cease  to  exist. 

But  the  force  of  despotic  authority  which  established  slavery  as  an  in- 
stitution still  remains,  and  its  burdens  have  not  yet  been  completely  removed 
from  the  shoulders  of  mankind.  In  feudal  Europe  the  fitting  complement, 
guide,  and  accessory  to  this  force  was  the  power  of  the  mediaeval  Church, 
serving  as  a  check,  it  is  true,  upon  certain  excesses  of  tyranny,  yet  without 
which  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  absolutism  to  have  restrained  so 
long  the  rising  power  of  conscience.  In  England — is  it  unfair  to  say  it  ? — the 
Church  Establishment  during  the  past  three  hundred  and  sixty  years  has 
stood  in  a  like  relation  to  kingly  authority,  and  is  to-day  the  emblem  and 
memorial  of  a  once  all-powerful  but  now  impotent  and  fast-disappearing 
institution  of  monarchy,  just  as  the  Roman  Church  system  is  a  surviving  relic 
of  the  drawn  sword  and  the  mailed  hand  of  the  age  of  iron.  Both  alike  be- 
long to  despotism,  feudalism,  and  those  other  early  stages  of  development 
which  European  civilization  has  passed  through  and  left  behind. 

On  the  other  hand,  can  it  be  truthfully  denied  that  the  theological  system 
which,  in  matters  religious,  takes  as  its  chief  tenet  the  theory  of  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  individual  conscience  over  the  voice  of  earthly  authority — that 
makes  man's  accountability  to  a  God  a  more  imperative  obligation  than  his 
accountability  to  a  prince,  and  controverts  the  divine  right  of  kings  —  can  it 
be  denied  that  this  system  on  which  the  polity  of  England  has  ever  sought 
to  cast  odium  by  the  use  in  pulpit  and  statute  of  such  invidious  terms  as 
"dissent,"  "nonconformity,"  "toleration,"  "heresy,  "  merely  embodies 
the  accumulated  protest  of  man's  conscience  against  the  oppressions  of 
tyranny ;  and  that  it  constituted  the  first  and  only  effective  barrier  that  has 
ever  been  erected  to  save  the  race  from  the  encroachments  of  that  force 
most  antagonistic  to  human  welfare  —  man's  unrestricted  exercise  of  arbi- 
trary power  ? 

Verily,  the  chief  distinction  between  the  Scottish  and  English  character 
is  that  arising  from  the  two  different  conceptions  of  religion.  The  Scotch 
make  of  religion  their  main  guiding  standard  of  life  and  rule  of  conduct. 
Its  requirements  are  supreme  over  those  of  any  temporal  or  political  con- 
sideration. Its  functions  and  obligations  are  superior  to  those  of  any  secular 
authority,  often,  indeed,  more  sacredly  regarded  than  the  bond  which  holds 
together  the  social  fabric.  Among  the  English,  on  the  contrary,  religion 
has  ever  been  of  secondary  importance,  and  subordinate  to  the  secular  State, 
and  to  the  needs  and  requirements  of  the  existing  organization  of  society, 
whatever  it  might  for  the  time  be  —  allodial,  feudal,  monarchical,  or  consti- 
tutional.     The  promptings,  hopes,  aspirations,   and  advancements  of  the 


130  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

individual  English  conscience,  therefore,  are  entirely  limited  by  considera- 
tions for  the  rights  of  existing  society  as  a  whole,  however  irrationally  con- 
stituted. The  good  of  the  individual  is  set  aside  for  the  good  of  the  state. 
Existing  institutions,  vested  rights,  and  unequal  concentrations  of  power, 
rank,  or  privilege,  are  to  be  sustained,  and  their  claims  demand  and  receive 
at  least  equal  consideration  with  the  highest  claims  of  humanity.  Hence 
arises  the  necessity  for  compromise ;  concessions  have  to  be  made  on  both 
sides.  The  strong  must  yield  a  little  of  his  substance  to  the  weak.  His 
vested  rights  must  suffer  that  their  opportunities  may  be  enlarged.  But  the 
weak  can  never  expect  full  justice  from  the  strong.  They  must  always  act 
on  the  rule  that  half  a  loaf  is  better  than  no  bread.  Hence,  the  history  of 
civilization  and  human  progress  in  England,  from  the  time  when  the  land 
was  seized  by  the  strong  hand  of  the  Norman,  has  been  merely  a  story  of 
continually  growing  demands  on  the  part  of  the  increasing  masses;  con- 
tinual repulse  and  rejection  on  the  part  of  the  power-holding  classes;  and 
final  concessions  and  mutual  compromise  on  the  part  of  both.  The  body 
of  English  laws,  in  consequence,  is  chiefly  the  record  of  half-acquired  de- 
mands on  the  part  of  the  people  and  half-granted  concessions  on  the  part  of 
their  lords.  By  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  power  still  remains  in  the 
hands  of  the  representatives  of  those  who  first  seized  it,  and  the  part  received 
by  the  people  is  but  a  fraction  of  what  would  result  from  a  justly  propor- 
tioned division. 

We  find,  therefore,  that  the  word  "  compromise  "  is  written,  cross-writ- 
ten, and  under-written  on  almost  every  page  of  the  record  of  English  history, 
English  legislation,  and  English  statesmanship.  The  English  statute-book 
is  one  long,  unvarying  repetition  of  the  story  of  evils  partially  cured,  of 
wrongs  half-righted,  and  of  the  attempts  of  the  framers  of  laws  to  please  all 
parties  concerned.  The  British  Constitution  is  proverbially  a  patchwork 
composition,  in  which  every  man  can  claim  that  his  rights  are  given  recog- 
nition, and  no  two  men  can  tell  alike  just  what  those  rights  are. 

The  germination  and  growth  of  English  liberty  may  be  likened  to  that  of 
a  hardy  oak,  planted  within  the  walls  of  a  strong  tower.  In  the  course  of 
time  it  grew  and  filled  the  whole  of  the  tower,  although  ever  circumscribed 
and  prevented  from  reaching  its  full  stature  and  extent  by  the  impassable 
walls  of  stone.  A  day  may  come  when  it  will  force  the  foundations  from 
the  ground,  and  reach  the  freedom  of  the  open  air  by  breaking  asunder  the 
confining  walls  of  its  prison.  Or,  possibly,  since  the  ecclesiastical  mortar 
has  lost  its  bond,  the  walls  may  fall  of  their  own  weight;  for,  indeed,  to-day, 
monarchy  in  England  stands  much  like  other  of  the  crumbling  and  ivy- 
covered  ruins  of  feudal  power  and  grandeur — slowly  but  surely  disintegrating 
and  passing  away. 

In  America,  of  course,  the  conditions  were  vastly  different.  Here  was 
a  primeval  state  of  nature.  Here  began  the  childhood  of  a  new  world. 
Here,  at  the  first,  were  none  of  man's  injustices  to  man;  no  castles;  no 


Religion  131 

oppressions  of  tyranny;  no  burdens  of  bishops.  Naturally,  the  plant  of  liberty 
thrived  and  flourished  from  the  start;  and  the  enemies  it  has  had  since  have 
been  those  of  parasitical  growth,  such  as  become  threatening  only  when 
suffered  for  too  long  a  time  to  remain  undisturbed. 

In  Scotland,  also,  the  liberty  tree  had  a  more  favorable  soil  and  less 
burdensome  bonds  than  in  England,  and  it  was  watered  and  nourished  by  the 
blood  of  many  martyrs.  The  power  of  the  nobles  was  more  frequently 
opposed  to  that  of  the  king,  and  as  a  result  there  was  often  a  division  and 
sometimes  a  disregard  of  authority.  Under  these  conditions,  the  rights  of 
the  people  were  more  fully  regarded.  Then,  when  John  Knox  stirred  the 
soil  and  fertilized  the  roots  with  his  Calvinistic  doctrines  of  equality  and 
liberty,  the  result  was  a  rapid  growth  and  a  complete  bursting  of  restricting 
bonds. 

Thus  we  may  conclude  that  the  difference  between  Scottish  and  English 
character,  in  its  ultimate  analysis,  is  this:  the  former  has  been  developed 
chiefly  by  the  exercise  of  self-control,  guided  by  the  individual  conscience; 
the  latter,  by  the  discipline  of  authority,  imposed  by  feudal  and  monarchical 
power.  While  it  is  sometimes  contended  that  monarchy  is  more  favorable 
to  the  exceptional  few,  and  offers  better  promise  to  ambitious  men,  it  is  gener- 
ally admitted  that  democracy  affords  more  opportunity  for  progress  to  the 
average  man,  and  is  therefore  better  in  its  results  for  the  masses.  However, 
the  history  of  America  shows  that  more  of  her  leaders  have  come  from  the 
democratic  Scotch,  in  proportion  to  their  number,  than  from  the  king-loving 
English.  Hence,  it  is  to  be  inferred  that  that  system  of  government  is 
better  both  for  leaders  and  followers  which  gives  the  greatest  possible  amount 
of  individual  liberty,  not  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  others.  This  insures 
perfect  equality  of  rank  and  opportunity,  without  offering  undue  incentive 
to  the  ambition  of  its  leading  citizens.  Consequently,  such  a  system  is  not 
only  the  most  desirable  for  the  common  people,  but,  by  elevating  the  average 
standard  of  humanity,  serves  also  to  offer  broader  and  higher  aims  for  the 
worthy  efforts  of  the  ambitious. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  IX. 

1  See  Appendix  G  (Christianity  in  Early  Britain). 

2  It  is  usual  for  native  writers  on  English  Church  history,  who  seek  to  minimize  the  in- 
fluence of  Rome  on  their  religion,  to  ascribe  the  conversion  of  the  Angles  and  Saxons  almost 
wholly  to  the  labors  of  the  Scottish  missionaries  and  the  Christianized  Britons  who  remained 
alive  after  the  Anglian  conquest.  On  the  other  hand,  in  recent  years,  Freeman  and  other 
native  writers  on  English  secular  history  attempt  to  show  that  practically  none  of  the  east- 
ern Britons  survived  the  exterminating  wars  of  the  English  invaders.  While  these  two  the- 
ories are  wholly  inconsistent  with  one  another,  the  evidence  shows  the  former  to  be  no  less 
erroneous  than  the  latter. 

3  Book  ii.,  ch.  ii. 

4  Although  Bede  and  other  writers  make  most  mention  of  the  disputes  and  controversies 
respecting  the  celebration  of  Easter,  and  the  peculiar  form  of  clerical  tonsure,  and  such  like 


132  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

fooleries,  from  which  some  have  hastily  concluded  that  there  was,  after  all,  nothing  but  the 
most  trifling  and  unessential  distinctions  between  the  Culdees  [Columbans]  and  their  Anglo- 
Roman  opponents  ;  yet  a  closer  examination  may  enable  us  to  discover  .  .  .  that  they 
differed  in  some  points  of  vital  importance.  .  .  .  From  incidental  notices  ...  it 
may  be  gathered  that  the  Culdees  were  opposed  to  the  Church  of  Rome  in  such  essential 
doctrines  as  the  following :  They  rejected  .  .  .  auricular  confession,  penance  .  .  . 
authoritative  absolution  .  .  .  transubstantiation  .  .  .  the  worship  of  angels,  saints, 
and  relics,  .  .  .  praying  to  saints  for  their  intercession,  prayers  for  the  dead,  .  .  . 
works  of  supererogation,  .  .  .  confirmation. — Hetherington,  History  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  pp.  15,  16.  The  vital  point  of  their  difference,  as  stated  by  their  representa- 
tives at  the  Whitby  conference,  in  664,  will  be  found  in  the  next  succeeding  extract  from 
Bede.  It  was  that  they  would  not  accept  Augustine  as  their  superior. 
6  Bk.  iii. ,  ch.  xxv. 

6  See  p.  218,  Note  43. 

7  See  p.  305. 

England's  influence  and  example  were  the  direct  causes  of  the  subservience  of  Scot- 
land's more  ancient  and  purer  faith.  This  might  be  rendered  evident  did  our  limits  permit 
us  to  trace  minutely  the  successive  events  which  led  to  this  disastrous  result ;  such  as  the 
residence  for  a  time  in  England  of  some  of  our  most  powerful  kings,  especially  Malcolm 
Canmore  and  David  I.,  who,  returning  to  Scotland  with  their  minds  filled  with  prejudices 
in  behalf  of  the  pomp  and  splendor  of  the  English  Prelacy,  made  it  their  utmost  endeavor 
to  erect  buildings  and  organize  and  endow  a  hierarchy  which  might  vie  in  dignity  and  grand- 
eur with  those  of  their  more  wealthy  neighbors.  The  ruinous  effects  were  soon  apparent. 
In  vain  did  the  best  of  the  Scottish  clergy  oppose  these  innovations  ;  their  more  ambitious 
brethren  were  but  too  ready  to  grasp  at  the  proffered  wealth  and  honor  ;  and  at  length,  to 
save  themselves  from  the  usurpations  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  strove  to  assert 
supremacy  over  the  Scottish  church,  they  yielded  up  their  spiritual  liberty  to  the  Roman 
pontiff  in  the  year  1176. — Hetherington,  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  14. 

8  See  Knox's  History  of  the  Reformation,  bk.  i. 

9  Slavery  under  the  Roman  empire  was  carried  on  to  an  excess  never  known  elsewhere, 
before  or  since.  Christianity  found  it  permeating  and  corrupting  every  domain  of  human 
life,  and  in  six  centuries  of  conflict  succeeded  in  reducing  it  to  nothing.  .  .  .  Christianity 
in  the  early  ages  never  denounced  slavery  as  a  crime,  never  encouraged  or  permitted  the 
slaves  to  rise  against  their  masters  and  throw  off  the  yoke  ;  yet  she  permeated  the  minds  of 
both  masters  and  slaves  with  ideas  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  slavery.  Within 
the  Church,  master  and  slave  stood  on  an  absolute  equality. — W.  R.  Brownlow,  Lectures 
on  Slavery  and  Serfdom  in  Europe,  lecture  1,2. 

10  It  has  been  often  shown  .  .  .  that  slavery  was  introduced  through  motives  of 
mercy,  to  prevent  conquerors  from  killing  their  prisoners.  Hence  the  Justinian  code  and 
also  St.  Augustine  (De  Civ.  Dei.,  xix.,  15)  derived  servus  from  servare,  to  preserve,  be- 
cause the  victor  preserved  his  prisoners  alive.— Lecky,  History  of  European  Morals,  vol. 
i.,  pp.  101,  102. 


CHAPTER  X 
SCOTTISH  ACHIEVEMENT 

WITH  the  Scotch,  the  expression  of  the  spiritual  has  ever  been  through 
religion.  In  art  and  literature  they  have  produced  less  relatively 
than  the  English  —  in  the  North  of  Ireland,  almost  nothing.  Yet  it  is  far 
from  the  truth  to  say  that  Celtic  genius  has  not  found  expression  in  lit- 
erature or  art.  More  than  once  it  has  been  pointed  out  that  Shakespeare 
himself  was  born  near  the  forest  of  Arden,  close  to  the  border-line  between 
England  and  Wales.  The  people  of  the  West  of  England  to-day  are  prob- 
ably as  much  Celtic  as  Teutonic,  and  it  would  seem  that  there  are  at  least 
no  better  grounds  for  claiming  their  greatest  genius  as  a  Saxon  than  for  as- 
suming that  he  may  have  been  a  Briton.  He  is  as  likely  to  have  been  the 
one  as  the  other;  though  if  the  truth  could  be  known,  it  would  probably  be 
found  that  he  had  received  an  infusion  of  the  blood  and  the  spirit  of  both.1 

Of  the  second  greatest  poet  of  Britain,  it  may  be  said  there  is  vastly  more 
reason  for  believing  him  to  have  been  of  purely  Celtic  extraction  than  there 
is  for  asserting  Shakespeare's  genius  to  have  been  wholly  Teutonic.  It  is 
possible,  however,  that  Burns,  also,  was  of  mixed  descent.  Rare  Ben  Jon- 
son,  likewise,  although  himself  born  in  England,  was  the  grandson  of  an 
Annandale  Scotchman. 

Walter  Scott,  James  Boswell,  Lord  Byron,  Robert  L.  Stevenson,  Edgar 
Allan  Poe,  James  M.  Barrie,  Thomas  Carlyle,  Washington  Irving,  HallCaine, 
Robert  Barr,  John  M.  Watson,  S.  R.  Crockett,  David  Christie  Murray,  and 
William  Black  are  writers  of  Scottish  blood  who  have  been  given  a  high 
place  in  English  literature,  and  some  of  them  classed  as  English.  In  their 
days,  Buchanan,  Robertson,  Hume,  and  Macaulay  were  perhaps  the  greatest 
historians  Britain  had  produced.  Those  Scots  have  since  been  eclipsed  by 
other  writers  of  a  more  English  origin ;  but  the  latter,  in  turn,  have  been 
outdone  by  a  Celt  —  one  whose  work,  so  far  as  it  has  gone,  shows  the  most 
philosophical,  judicious,  and  enlightened  treatment  of  the  subject  of  English 
history  that  it  has  yet  received.     This  historian  is  Mr.  W.  E.  H.  Lecky. 

Other  Scottish  writers  who  have  helped  to  make  the  fame  of  "  English  " 
literature  world-wide  are  Tobias  Smollett,  William  E.  Aytoun,  Joanna 
Baillie,  M.  O.  W.  Oliphant,  Alexander  Barclay,  John  Stuart  Blackie,  James 
Beattie,  Robert  Buchanan,  John  Hill  Burton,  Thomas  Campbell,  Jane  Porter, 
Andrew  Lang,  Archibald  Forbes,  Benjamin  Kidd,  George  Farquhar  (of  Lon- 
donderry), John  Gait,  George  MacDonald,  John  Barbour,  James  Hogg  (the 
Ettrick  Shepherd),  John  Wilson  {Christopher  North),  Allan  Ramsay,  William 
Drummond,  James  Pollok,  William  Dunbar,  James  Thomson  (who  wrote 
Rule,  Britannia),  James  Macpherson,  Charles  Mackay,  F.  W.  Robertson. 

133 


134  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Among  the  great  thinkers  in  the  fields  of  political  and  practical  science 
Scotland  has  given  to  the  world  James  Watt  (the  inventor  of  the  steam- 
engine),  Adam  Smith,  Hugh  Miller,  William  Thomson  (Lord  Kelvin),  Joseph 
Black,  Robert  Simson,  John  Robinson,  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  Sir  Alexander 
Mackenzie,  Morell  Mackenzie,  William  Murdoch  (the  inventor  of  illuminat- 
ing-gas), John  Napier  (the  inventor  of  logarithms),  James  Bruce,  the  two 
Rosses,  Mungo  Park,  James  Grant,  Dugald  Stewart,  and  David  Livingstone, 
besides  a  legion  of  American  scientists  of  the  first  rank.  William  Ewart 
Gladstone  was  of  purely  Scottish  parentage.  His  father,  born  in  Leith,  was 
descended  from  a  Lanarkshire  farmer,  and  his  mother,  Ann  Robertson,  be- 
longed to  the  Ross-shire  Robertsons.8  James  Bryce  likewise  is  of  Scottish 
descent.*  In  America,  during  the  past  ten  years,  these  two  men  were  the 
best  known  and  most  popular  Britons  of  the  decade,  and  Gladstone's  death 
was  mourned  as  generally  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  as  in  Great  Britain. 
Lord  Rosebery,  the  present  leader  of  the  Liberal  party  in  Great  Britain,  is 
also  a  Scotchman. 

Ulster  can  boast  of  the  names  of  some  of  the  best  of  the  captains  who 
served  under  Wellington;  and  she  gave  to  India  two  men  who  helped 
materially  to  save  that  empire  for  England  during  the  great  mutiny — Henry 
and  John  Lawrence.  Of  the  blood  of  the  Ulster  settlers  sprang  Lord  Cas- 
tlereagh,  George  Canning,  Sir  Henry  Pottinger,  and  Lord  Cairns;  and  also 
one  of  the  most  brilliant  and  successful  of  modern  administrators,  Lord 
Dufferin,  the  inheritor  of  the  title  of  one  of  the  first  of  the  Scottish  set- 
tlers, James  Hamilton,  Lord  Clannaboye,  and  the  possessor  of  part  of  the 
old  Scottish  settlement  on  the  south  shore  of  Belfast  Lough.4 

In  art,  Scotland  has  produced  little  that  is  worthy;  but  the  same  remark 
applies  with  equal  force  to  England.  British  art,  as  a  rule,  is  built  on  foun- 
dations of  conventionality  rather  than  inspiration.  Here,  as  in  some  certain 
other  attributes  of  a  refined  civilization,  the  best  examples  are  produced  by 
Celtic  France.  Nevertheless,  critics  to-day  are  coming  to  class  the  Scottish 
artist,  Henry  Raeburn,  with  the  world's  greatest  portrait  painters.  George 
Cruikshank,  also,  was  the  son  of  a  father  born  north  of  the  Tweed.  To 
America,  France,  more  than  England,  represents  all  that  is  most  excellent 
in  modern  art.  As  a  consequence,  American  artists  of  Scottish  and  Eng- 
lish ancestry  are  producing  more  excellent  work  than  their  British  cousins  of 
native  stock.6 

In  connection  with  the  subject  of  Scottish  achievement,  it  will  be  appro- 
priate to  give  in  condensed  form  the  results  of  an  investigation  made  by  Mr. 
William  H.  Hunter,  a  diligent  and  painstaking  student,  who  presented  the 
following  facts  in  an  address  delivered  before  the  West  Florida  Pioneer 
Scotch  Society  on  January  25,  1895: 

It  has  been  said  that  opportunity  is  the  father  of  greatness;  but  the 
opportunity  for  inventing  the  steam-engine  obtained  before  the  boy  Watt 


Scottish  Achievement  135 

played  with  the  vapor  from  his  mother's  kettle.  A  Scotchman  saw  the  op- 
portunity and  grasped  it,  and  revolutionized  the  forces  in  the  hands  of  man. 

When  we  study  race-building,  we  can  understand  why  a  Scotchman 
(Cyrus  McCormick)  invented  the  mowing-machine.  John  Sinclair,  a  Scotch- 
man of  wonderful  perception,  organized  the  British  Board  of  Agriculture. 
John  Caird's  writings  added  not  a  little  to  the  advancement  of  agriculture. 
Henry  Burden  invented  the  cultivator,  and  Thomas  Jefferson  gave  us  the 
modern  plough.  I  am  also  told  that  Longstreet,  who  improved  the  cotton- 
gin,  and  made  possible  its  operation  by  means  of  steam  power,  was  of  Scot- 
tish blood.  I  take  it  that  there  are  men  here  to-day  who  remember  the 
revolution  made  in  American  farming  by  the  introduction  of  the  double 
Scotch  harrow. 

When  Michael  Menzies  and  Andrew  Meikle  invented  the  threshing-ma- 
chine in  1788,  they  made  it  so  nearly  perfect  in  all  its  workings  that  little 
room  for  improvement  was  left  for  latter-day  genius.  The  improved  roads 
in  most  general  use  are  made  after  the  systems  introduced  by  the  eminent 
Scotch  engineers,  MacAdam  and  Telford. 

Watt  made  the  first  electrical  apparatus,  and  would  have  continued  ex- 
periments along  this  line,  but  dropped  electricity  to  give  his  whole  time  to 
perfecting  the  steam-engine.  .  .  .  The  honor  for  harnessing  lightning 
to  serve  man  as  a  swift  messenger  belongs  to  one  through  whose  veins 
coursed  Scotch  blood  —  Samuel  Finley  Breese  Morse.  .  .  .  The  old- 
time  telegraphers,  James  D.  Reid,  Andrew  Carnegie,  Robert  Pitcairn,  Ken- 
neth McKenzie,  and  David  McCargo,  the  men  who  aided  Morse,  and  made 
his  system  successful,  are  of  Scotch  blood.  The  Wizard  of  Menlo  Park  is  of 
the  same  blood  [Edison's  mother  was  Mary  Elliott].  Sir  William  Thomson, 
a  native  of  Scotch-Ireland,  made  possible  the  successful  operation  of  the 
ocean  electric  cables  by  invention  of  the  mirror-galvanometer,  which  reflects 
the  words  noted  by  the  electric  sparks  as  they  flash  under  the  sea.  The 
telephone  was  invented  by  Alexander  Graham  Bell,  a  Scotchman,  while 
Elisha  Gray,  of  the  same  blood,  is  at  work  perfecting  a  telotograph.  .  .  . 
John  Ericsson  was  born  a  Swede,  but  his  biographer  says  of  him  that  he 
got  his  genius  from  his  mother,  who  was  of  Scottish  descent.  ...  In 
speaking  of  the  steamship,  how  many  Scotch  names  come  to  mind!  New- 
comen,  Watt,  Patrick  Miller,  Symington,  Henry  Burden,  Bell,  Roach,  the 
American  shipbuilder,  and  Fulton,  distinguished  as  the  first  person  to  suc- 
cessfully propel  a  boat  by  steam.  The  first  steam  vessel  to  cross  the  Atlantic 
from  America  was  built  by  a  Scotchman.  The  Great  Western,  constructed 
by  Henry  Burden,  was  the  first  steamship  to  cross  the  ocean  from  Europe  to 
America.  The  modern  mariner's  compass  was  invented  by  Sir  William 
Thomson. 

The  possibility  of  a  railway  was  first  suggested  by  Watt.  Henry  Burden 
first  made  the  peculiar  spike,  used  to  this  day  to  fasten  the  rail  to  the  cross- 
tie.  Peter  Cooper  built  the  first  locomotive  in  America.  The  Pennsylvania 
Railroad  Company,  the  greatest  and  most  powerful  railroad  corporation  in 
the  world,  was  brought  to  its  present  stage  by  the  skilled  efforts  of  such 
Scotchmen  as  Thomas  A.  Scott,  William  Thaw,  J.  N.  McCullough,  James 
McCrea,  and  Robert  Pitcairn  [to  these  names  should  now  be  added  those  of 
Frank  Thomson  and  A.  J.  Cassatt];  while  General  Campbell,  the  manager 
of  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  system,  is  also  a  Scotchman  [later  John  K.  Cowen, 
also  of  Scottish  blood].  During  the  late  war  between  the  States,  the  Federal 
railroad  military  service  was  under  the  generalship  of  D.  C.  McCullum. 
The  Canadian  Pacific  Railroad  was  built  by  a  Scotchman. 


136  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

It  is  a  fact  that  Puritan  ladies  were  taught  to  spin,  on  Boston  Common, 
by  Scottish  immigrants  from  Northern  Ireland ;  and  the  great  textile  industry- 
was  given  impetus  by  the  invention  of  carding  and  spinning  machines  by 
Alexander  and  Robert  Barr,  which  machines  were  introduced  by  a  Mr.  Orr, 
also  a  New  England  Scotchman.  And  the  inventor  of  the  mule  spinning 
machine  was  a  Scot.  Gordon  McKay  invented  the  sole-stitching  that  revo- 
lutionized shoemaking  in  New  England. 

The  first  iron-furnace  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains  was  erected  by  a 
Scotchman  named  Grant,  in  1794.  At  this  mill,  the  cannon-balls  used  by 
Perry  in  the  battle  of  Lake  Erie  were  made.  John  Campbell,  a  stalwart 
Ohio  Scot,  first  employed  the  hot-blast  in  making  pig-iron. 

The  Scotch  author  is  eminent  in  every  line  of  literary  production.  We 
could  rest  our  honors  with  Hume,  Carlyle,  Scott,  and  Burns,  and  hold  a  high 
place  in  the  world  of  letters.  Adam  Smith  was  the  first  person  to  write  of 
political  economy  as  a  science,  which  theme  has  been  also  treated  by  Samuel 
Baily,  J.  R.  McCullough,  Chalmers,  and  Alison.  Scotland  gave  the  literary 
world  Barbour,  Blind  Harry,  Gavin  Douglas,  Wyntoun,  Dunbar,  McKenzie, 
Wilson,  Grant,  Barrie,  George  MacDonald,  and  John  Stuart  Blackie.  .  .  . 
Scotland  gave  to  America  Washington  Irving.  .  .  .  Mrs.  Margaret  Wil- 
son Oliphant  is  of  our  blood,  and  also  Robert  Louis  Stevenson.  What  author 
of  fiction  has  received  fuller  attention  than  John  Maclaren  Watson  ? 

The  Scot  has  been  a  voluminous  writer  of  theology  from  the  days  of  John 
Knox,  the  real  hero  of  the  Reformation.  You  all  know  that,  of  the  six 
ablest  British  sermonizers  —  Alison,  Irving,  Chalmers,  Robertson,  Robert 
Hall,  and  Spurgeon  —  the  first  four  mentioned  were  Scotch. 

Hugh  Miller  told  us  the  story  of  the  rocks.  To  Scotland  we  are  in- 
debted for  William  McLuce,  the  father  of  American  geology,  undertaking, 
as  he  did,  as  a  private  enterprise,  the  geological  survey  of  the  United  States, 
visiting  each  State  and  Territory,  and  publishing  his  maps  six  years  prior  to 
publication  of  the  Smith  geological  map  of  England.  The  Owens  —  David, 
Richard,  and  Robert  Dale — were  men  of  the  highest  attainments  in  the  field 
of  American  geology,  the  latter,  at  his  death,  having  the  finest  museum  and 
laboratory  on  the  Western  Continent.  Andrew  Ramsey,  who  was  the  director- 
general  of  the  Geological  Survey  of  Great  Britain,  was  a  Scot. 

Nicholl,  Keill,  and  Ferguson,  the  noted  astronomers,  were  Scotchmen. 
The  most  learned  of  American  astronomers  was  General  Armsby  McKnight 
Mitchell.  .  .  .  Maria  Mitchell,  another  Scotch-American  astronomer, 
had  the  distinction  of  receiving  a  medal  from  the  King  of  Denmark. 

No  other  race  has  produced  a  greater  mathematician  than  John  Napier, 
the  most  distinguished  of  the  British  writers  on  the  science  of  numbers. 
Has  Germany  produced  men  of  larger  grasp  of  thought  along  this  line  than 
James  Beattie  or  Andrew  Baxter,  than  Sir  William  Hamilton  or  Doctor 
Abercrombie  ?  Neil  Arnott  was  the  first  person  to  illustrate  scientific  prin- 
ciples in  the  language  of  common  life,  his  work  being  so  popular  that  it  ran 
through  five  editions  in  six  years.  Robert  and  James  Holdams,  the  philos- 
ophers, Spencer  Fullerton  Baird,  the  most  noted  American  naturalist,  Alex- 
ander Wilson,  the  ornithologist,  Samuel  Mitchell,  who  published  the  first 
scientific  periodical  in  the  United  States,  Lindley  Murray,  the  philologist  — 
all  were  Scots,  and  all  authorities  in  their  respective  fields  of  research.  Dr. 
Clay  McCauley,  the  noted  Scotch  Unitarian  of  Boston,  is  at  the  head  of  the 
Senshin  Sacknin,  or  school  of  advanced  learning  belonging  to  this  church  in 
Japan.  Who  has  written  on  the  science  of  botany  with  greater  clearness 
than  John  H.  Balfour  ?     Was  there  ever  a  scholar  of  wider  distinction  for 


Scottish  Achievement  137 

comprehensive  treatment  of  botany  than  Asa  Gray,  the  descendant  of  a 
New  England  Scotch  family  ?  W.  R.  Smith,  a  Scotchman,  has  been  for 
years  superintendent  of  the  Government  Botanical  Gardens. 

That  distinguished  Scotch  anatomist,  John  Abernethy,  the  father  of 
modern  surgery,  revolutionized  this  science.  Dr.  J.  Y.  Simpson  was  the 
first  person  to  use  chloroform  as  an  anaesthetic  in  the  practice  of  surgery. 
Ephraim  McDowell's  skill  found  new  fields  in  operative  surgery,  and  he 
became  noted  in  Europe  as  well  as  in  America.  No  race  has  given  to 
medicine  the  superiors  of  William  and  John  Hunter,  of  Matthew  Bailie,  or 
John  Barclay.  If  one  were  to  ask  who  have  been  the  four  most  noted  sur- 
geons and  medical  doctors  in  America,  the  answer  would  be:  Hamilton, 
Hammond,  Hays  Agnew,  and  Weir  Mitchell,  all  of  Scotch  blood. 

As  early  as  1795,  Dr.  Thornton  called  attention  to  the  possibility  of  teach- 
ing the  deaf  and  dumb  to  talk,  and  Alexander  Bell  introduced  the  system  for 
instructing  the  deaf  and  dumb,  invented  by  his  Scotch  father.  John  Alston 
was  the  inventor  of  the  blind  alphabet,  and  John  Gall  printed  in  English  the 
first  book  for  the  blind. 

Gedd,  the  inventor  of  stereotyping,  was  a  Scotchman.  The  Scot  also 
gave  us  the  lightning  presses.  Scott,  Gordon,  and  Campbell  are  of  our 
blood.  David  Bruce,  the  pioneer  type-maker,  the  inventor  of  the  type- 
casting machine,  introduced  the  Gedd  process  in  America.  Archibald 
Binney  and  James  Ronaldson  established  the  first  type  foundry  in  Phila- 
delphia. To  Bruce  and  the  McKellars  we  are  greatly  indebted  for  the  ad- 
vanced position  our  country  holds  to-day  in  this  great  industry.  The  first 
American  newspaper,  the  News-Letter,  was  published  in  Boston  by  John 
Campbell.  William  Maxwell,  a  Scotchman,  published  at  Cincinnati  the  first 
newspaper  in  the  Northwest  Territory;  and  the  first  religious  paper  in  the 
United  States  was  published  at  Chillicothe,  Ohio,  by  a  Scotchman. 

In  sculpture,  Scotland  has  given  to  England  and  America  their  finest 
artists.  William  Calder  Marshall,  and  not  an  Englishman,  won  the  prize 
offered  by  the  British  government  for  a  design  for  the  Wellington  monument. 
Sir  John  Steele  executed  the  colossal  statue  of  Burns  that  adorns  New 
York's  beautiful  park.  John  C.  King,  the  New  England  sculptor,  whose 
busts  of  Adams  and  Emerson  are  masterpieces  of  plastic  art,  and  whose 
cameos  of  Webster  and  Lincoln  are  magnificent  gems,  was  a  Scot;  as  was 
Joel  Hart,  whose  statues  of  Clay  at  Richmond  and  New  Orleans  are  exten- 
sively admired.  Crawford  and  Ward  are  of  our  blood;  and  where  is  there 
a  Scot  whose  heart  does  not  beat  with  pride  in  the  knowledge  that  Scotch 
blood  courses  in  the  veins  of  Frederick  Macmonnies  ?  There  is  no  end  to 
Scotch  painters.  Sir  David  Wilkie  was  perhaps  the  most  noted  of  British 
artists.  Then  there  were  Francis  Brant  and  William  Hart.  Some  of  the 
works  of  Alexander  Johnston  are  among  the  world's  masterpieces.  David 
Allan's  pen  drew  the  familiar  illustrations  to  Burns's  lyrics.  There  was  an 
academy  of  art  in  Glasgow  before  there  was  one  in  London.  Guthrie,  Mac- 
Gregor,  Walton,  Lavery,  Patterson,  Roche,  and  Stevenson  all  have  been 
eminent  painters.  Gilbert  Stuart,  who  left  us  portraits  of  prominent  actors 
in  early  American  history,  was  a  Scot,  as  was  E.  F.  Andrews,  who  has  given 
America  its  best  portraits  of  Jefferson,  Martha  Washington,  and  Dolly  Madi- 
son, those  which  hang  in  the  White  House.  Alexander  Anderson  was  the 
first  American  wood-engraver,  inventing,  as  he  did,  the  tools  used  by  those 
pursuing  this  art. 

No  other  race  has  produced  explorers  of  greater  achievement  than  Mac- 
kenzie, Richardson,  Ross,  Collison,  McClintock  [Melville,  Greely],  or  Hays. 


138  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

John  and  Clark  Ross  made  the  only  valuable  discoveries  ever  made  in  the 
Antarctic  region;  while  David  Livingstone,  Mungo  Park,  Doctor  Johnson 
[James  Grant],  and  Doctor  Donaldson  penetrated  Darkest  Africa.  Thomas 
Hutchins,  the  first  geographer  of  the  United  States,  was  Scotch.  So  were 
James  Geddes  and  Samuel  Forrer,  the  pioneer  engineers  of  the  Northwest 
Territory.  Commodore  Matthew  Galbraith  Perry,  one  of  the  famous  family 
of  sailors,  broke  down  the  walls  of  Japan,  and  let  in  the  light  of  Western 
civilization.  The  Perrys  got  their  great  force  of  character  from  their  mother, 
who  was  Scotch.  For  thirty  years  Sir  Robert  Hart  was  at  the  head  of  the 
Chinese  financial  system,  and  opened  to  commerce  many  Chinese  ports, 
while  Samuel  M.  Bryan  was  for  a  dozen  years  the  Postmaster-General  of 
Japan,  and  introduced  into  that  empire  the  Western  postal  system. 

Do  we  speak  of  war,  a  thousand  Scotch  names  rise  above  all  the  heroes: 
Wallace  at  Stirling;  Bruce  at  Bannockburn;  Wolfe's  Scottish  soldiers  at  the 
Heights  of  Abraham;  Forbes  at  Fort  Duquesne;  Stark  at  Bennington; 
Campbell  at  King's  Mountain;  Scott  at  Lundy's  Lane;  Perry  on  Lake  Erie; 
Grant  at  Appomattox.  Were  not  Wellington  and  Napier  Scotch  ?  The 
latter  was. 

Paul  Jones  was  only  one  of  the  naval  heroes  of  our  blood.  Oliver 
Hazard  Perry  captured  a  whole  British  fleet  in  the  battle  of  Lake  Erie, 
building  his  own  ships  on  the  bank  of  the  lake.  Perry's  mother  was  an 
Alexander;  and  it  is  a  fact  not  mentioned  in  histories  published  in  New 
England,  that  for  years  after,  the  victory  on  Lake  Erie  was  called  Mrs. 
Perry's  victory,  by  neighbors  of  the  family  in  Rhode  Island.  Thomas 
McDonough,  of  Lake  Champlain,  Stewart,  and  Bailey  were  Scots.  Isaac 
Newton,  who  had  charge  of  the  turret  and  engine  of  the  Monitor,  in  its  clash 
with  the  Merrimac,  was  of  the  same  blood.  Alexander  Murray  commanded 
the  Constitution  ;  and  William  Kidd,  the  daring  pirate,  was  also  a  Scotchman. 

In  the  American  Civil  War  the  Scotch- American  generals  of  the  Federal 
Army  from  Ohio  alone  made  our  race  conspicuous  in  skill  of  arms.  Grant 
was  a  Scotchman.  His  [father's]  people  came  direct  to  America,  and  first 
settled  in  Connecticut  [his  mother's  people  were  of  Pennsylvania  Scotch- 
Irish  stock].  New  England  gave  the  country  not  only  Stark  and  Knox,  but 
Grant  and  McClellan,  as  well  as  Salmon  P.  Chase  and  Hugh  McCulloch. 
But  I  was  speaking  of  Ohio.  The  McDowells,  the  Mitchells,  the  McPher- 
sons,  the  Fighting  McCooks  (two  families  having  nine  general  officers  in  the 
field),  the  Gibsons,  the  Hayeses,  the  Gilmores,  all  were  Ohio  Scots.  General 
Gilmore,  you  will  remember,  revolutionized  naval  gunnery  in  his  cannonade 
and  capture  of  Fort  Pulaski,  which  extended  his  fame  throughout  Europe. 
Gilmore,  the  "  Swamp  Angel,"  as  he  was  called,  was  an  Ohio  Scotchman. 
A  majority  of  the  Indian  fighters  in  the  Northwest  during  the  Revolu- 
tionary period  were  Scotchmen  and  Scotch-Irishmen,  whose  achievements 
are  history.  The  McCullochs,  the  Lewises,  the  McKees,  the  Crawfords, 
the  Pattersons,  the  Johnstons,  and  their  fellow  Scots  won  the  West.  George 
Rogers  Clark  made  complete  conquest  of  the  Northwest,  giving  to  free  gov- 
ernment five  great  States  that  otherwise  would  have  been  under  the  British 
flag.  The  truth  about  Ohio  is,  it  has  been  Scotch  from  its  first  governor, 
Arthur  St.  Clair,  down  to  the  present  [1895]  chief  executive,  William 
McKinley.  In  the  list  of  governors,  we  find  Duncan  McArthur,  Jeremiah 
Morrow  (or  Murray),  the  father  of  the  national  road  and  of  Ohio's  internal 
improvements,  Allen  Trimble,  who  introduced  the  public-school  system  into 
Ohio,  Rutherford  B.  Hayes,  who  became  President  of  the  United  States, 
James  E.  Campbell,  and  William  McKinley,  who  is  likely  to  be  a  candidate 


Scottish  Achievement  139 

of  one  of  the  political  parties  for  the  office  of  President  [of  the  six  Presidents 
born  in,  or  who  were  elected  to  office  from,  Ohio  —  Harrison,  Grant,  Hayes, 
Garfield,  Harrison,  and  McKinley —  four  were  of  Scottish  descent]. 

Professor  Hinsdale,  an  Ohio  historian  of  Puritan  extraction,  wrote  this  bit 
of  truth:  "  The  triumph  of  James  Wolfe  and  his  Highlanders  on  the  Heights 
of  Abraham,  and  not  the  embattled  farmers  of  Lexington,  won  the  first  vic- 
tory of  the  American  Revolution."  And  did  it  come  by  mere  chance  that 
another  Scotchman,  in  the  person  of  General  John  Forbes,  at  about  the 
same  time,  led  the  English  forces  that  reduced  Fort  Duquesne  at  the  con- 
fluence of  the  three  rivers,  and  opened  the  gateway  to  the  boundless  west  for 
the  forward  march  of  Anglo-Saxon  civilization  ?  Did  it  come  by  chance 
that  James  Grant  was  the  commander  in  the  relief  of  Lucknow;  that  the 
unmatched  Havelock  led  Scottish  soldiers  in  his  Asiatic  campaigns  which 
brought  such  lustre  to  British  arms  ?  We  have  a  right  to  manifest  pride  in 
the  fact  that  of  the  four  field  commanders-in-chief  in  the  Civil  War,  three 
were  Scotch  —  Scott,  McClellan,  and  Grant.  Chinese  Gordon  was  a  Scot. 
Through  the  veins  of  Robert  E.  Lee  flowed  the  blood  of  Robert  Bruce. 
Ulysses  S.  Grant  and  Jefferson  Davis  were  descendants  of  the  same  Scotch 
family  of  Simpson. 

Statesmen  ?  If  Scotland  had  given  to  civil  government  only  the  name 
of  Gladstone,  she  might  ever  glow  with  a  mother's  pride.  Erskine,  too,  was 
a  Scotchman,  and  considered  by  many  writers  the  ablest  and  most  eloquent 
of  the  long  line  of  British  jurists  whose  influence  was  most  potent  in  giving 
England  freer  government,  and  withal  the  most  vigorous  defender  of  consti- 
tutional liberty  born  on  British  soil.  Jefferson,  the  author  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  of  the  law  providing  for  religious  tolerance;  Madison, 
the  father  of  the  Constitution,  Monroe,  [Jackson],  Polk,  [Taylor],  Buchanan, 
Johnson,  Grant,  Hayes,  [Arthur,  Harrison,  McKinley],  are  Presidents  our 
race  has  given  to  the  United  States.  Daniel  Webster  was  of  Scottish  blood; 
so  were  the  intellectual  giants,  Benjamin  Wade  and  Joshua  Giddings.  Wade's 
Puritan  father  was  so  poor  in  purse  that  the  son  was  educated  at  the  knee  of 
his  Scotch  Presbyterian  mother.  McLean  and  Burnet,  two  of  the  ablest 
lawyers  and  statesmen  of  the  West,  were  Scots.  With  one  exception,  all  the 
members  of  Washington's  Cabinet  were  of  the  same  virile  blood ;  as  were  like- 
wise three  out  of  four  of  the  first  justices  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court. 

In  finance,  the  Scotch  are  no  less  distinguished  than  in  other  lines  of 
endeavor.  William  Paterson  was  the  founder  of  the  Bank  of  England,  and 
Alexander  Hamilton  established  the  American  system  of  finance.  Both  were 
Scots. 

The  accepted  notion  that  all  the  Scotch  get  their  theology  from  Calvin  is 
incorrect.  Charles  Pettit  Mcllvaine,  perhaps  the  ablest  bishop  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  America,  and  certainly  one  of  the  most  profound 
educators  on  this  continent,  was  a  Scotchman  by  descent.  Bishop  Matthew 
Simpson  was  without  question  the  ablest  prelate  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America.  James  Dempster,  whom  John  Wesley  sent  to  America 
as  a  missionary,  was  a  Scotchman,  and  his  son,  John  Dempster,  was  the 
founder  of  the  school  of  theology  of  the  Boston  University.  "  Father 
McCormick,"  as  he  was  called,  organized  the  first  Methodist  Episcopal 
church  in  the  Northwest  Territory.  John  Rankin  was  the  founder  of  the 
Free  Presbyterian,  and  Alexander  Campbell  of  the  Christian  Disciples' 
Church.  Robert  Turnbull  was  the  most  scholarly  divine  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Baptist  Church.  Edward  Robinson,  of  the  Puritan  Church,  was  recog- 
nized as  the  ablest  American  biblical  scholar.     While  referring  to  scholars, 


140  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

I  must  not  neglect  to  mention  the  fact  that  James  Blair  founded  William  and 
Mary  College  in  Virginia;  that  Princeton  is  a  Scotch  institution;  that  Doctor 
Alexander  founded  Augusta  Academy,  now  the  great  Washington  and  Lee 
University;  that  Jefferson  gave  the  South  the  University  of  Virginia;  that 
Doctor  John  McMillan  and  the  Finleys  established  more  than  a  dozen  col- 
leges in  the  West  and  South;  that  Doctor  Charles  C.  Beatty  established  the 
first  woman's  college  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains;  and  that  Joseph  Ray, 
William  H.  McGuffey,  and  Lindley  Murray  were  three  of  America's  most 
prominent  educators. 

NOTES    TO    CHAPTER   X. 

1  It  seems  certain  that  William  Shakespeare  was  at  least  in  part  of  Celtic  descent.  He  was 
a  grandson  of  Richard  Shakespeare,  Bailiff  of  Wroxhall,  by  Alys,  daughter  of  Edward  Griffin 
of  Berswell.  Edward  Griffin  was  of  the  Griffin  or  Griffith  family  of  Baybrook  in  Northamp- 
tonshire, who  claimed  descent  from  Griffith,  son  of  Rhysap  Tudor,  King  of  South  Wales. 
See  The  Gentle  Shakespeare  :  A  Vindication,  by  John  Pym  Yeatman,  of  Lincoln's  Inn, 
London,  1896.     See  also  p.  314,  Note  13. 

2  John  Gladstanes,  of  Toftcombes,  near  Biggar,  in  the  upper  ward  of  Lanarkshire,  was  a 
small  farmer,  who  married  Janet  Aitken ;  their  son,  Thomas,  who  died  in  1809,  settled  in 
Leith,  where  he  was  a  prosperous  merchant,  and  where  he  married  Helen  Neilson,  of  Spring- 
field ;  their  son  John,  born  in  1764,  married,  1800,  Ann  Robertson,  daughter  of  Andrew,  a 
native  of  Dingwall,  in  Ross-shire  ;  John  and  his  wife  settled  in  Liverpool,  where,  in  1809, 
their  son,  William  Ewart  Gladstone,  was  born. 

3  Rev.  James  Bryce  (1767-1857)  went  from  Scotland,  where  he  was  born,  to  Ireland,  and 
settled  in  1805,  as  minister  of  the  anti-burgher  church  in  Killaig,  County  Londonderry.  His 
son,  James  Bryce  (1806-1877)  was  born  in  Killaig  (near  Coleraine).  In  1846,  appointed  to 
the  High  School,  Glasgow.  (See  Dictionary  of  National Biography \  to  which  the  information 
contained  in  the  article  on  the  Bryces  was  furnished  by  the  family.)  James  Bryce,  the  writer 
of  The  American  Commonwealth,  the  son  and  grandson  of  the  persons  just  mentioned,  was 
born  in  Belfast,  Ireland,  May  10,  1838.  His  mother  was  Margaret,  eldest  daughter  of  James 
Young,  Esquire,  of  Abbeyville,  County  Antrim.  (See  Men  and  Women  of  the  Time,  thirteenth 
edition,  1891.) — Samuel  Swett  Green,  The  Scotch-Irish  in  America,  p.  34. 

4  "  T C ,"  a  writer  in  Eraser's  Magazine  for  August,  1876,  makes  the  following 

observations  on  the  character  and  achievements  of  the  Scotch  in  Ulster : 

"  Ulstermen  have  been  described  as  a  mongrel  community.  This  is  true  in  a  sense. 
They  are  neither  Scotch,  English,  nor  Irish,  but  a  mixture  of  all  three  ;  and  they  are  an 
ingredient  in  the  Irish  population  distinguished  by  habits  of  thought,  character,  and  utterance 
entirely  unlike  the  people  who  fill  the  rest  of  the  island.  It  is  easy  to  see,  however,  at  a 
single  glance  that  the  foundation  of  Ulster  society  is  Scotch.  This  is  the  solid  granite  on 
which  it  rests.  There  are  districts  of  country — especially  along  the  eastern  coast,  running 
sixty  or  seventy  miles,  from  the  Ards  of  Down  to  the  mouth  of  the  Foyle — in  which  the 
granite  crops  out  on  the  surface,  as  we  readily  observe  by  the  Scottish  dialect  of  the  peasan- 
try. Only  twenty  miles  of  sea  separate  Ulster  from  Scotland  at  one  point ;  and  just  as  the 
Grampians  cross  the  channel  to  rise  again  in  the  mountains  of  Donegal,  there  seems  to  be  no 
break  in  the  continuity  of  race  between  the  two  peoples  that  inhabit  the  two  opposite  coasts. 
Thus  it  comes  to  pass  that  much  of  the  history  of  Ulster  is  a  portion  of  Scottish  history 
inserted  into  that  of  Ireland  ;  a  stone  in  the  Irish  mosaic  of  an  entirely  different  color  and 
quality  from  the  pieces  that  surround  it.  James  I.,  colonized  Ulster  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, not  with  the  Gaelic  Scots,  who  might  have  coalesced  with  their  kindred  Celts  in  Ireland, 
but  with  that  Lowland  rural  population  who  from  the  very  first  fixed  the  moral  and  religious 
tone  of  the  entire  province.     Ireland  was  then  called  '  the  back  door  of  Great  Britain ' ;  and 


Scottish  Achievement  141 

James  I.  was  anxious  to  place  a  garrison  there  that  would  be  able  not  only  to  shut  the  door, 
but  to  keep  it  shut,  in  the  face  of  his  French  or  Spanish  enemies  ;  and,  accordingly,  when  an 
attempt  was  made  at  the  Revolution  to  force  the  door,  the  garrison  was  there — the  advanced 
outpost  of  English  power — to  shut  it  in  the  face  of  the  planter's  grandson,  and  so  to  save  the 
liberties  of  England  at  the  most  critical  moment  in  its  history.  One  may  see  (as  Hugh  Miller 
did)  in  the  indomitable  firmness  of  the  besieged  at  Derry  the  spirit  of  their  ancestors  under 
Wallace  and  Bruce,  and  recognize  in  the  gallant  exploits  of  the  Enniskillen  men  under 
Gustavus  Hamilton,  routing  two  of  the  forces  despatched  to  attack  them,  and  compelling  a 
third  to  retire,  a  repetition  of  the  thrice-fought  and  thrice-won  battle  of  Roslin.     .     .     . 

"  It  is  now  time  to  notice  the  character  and  ways  of  the  Ulsterman,  not  the  Celt  of 
Ulster,  who  gives  nothing  distinctive  to  its  society, — for  he  is  there  what  he  is  in  Munster  or 
Connaught,  only  with  a  less  degree  of  vivacity  and  wit, — but  the  Scotch-Irishman,  inheriting 
from  Scotland  that  Norse  nature  often  crossed  no  doubt  with  Celtic  blood,  the  one  giving 
him  his  persistency,  the  other  a  touch  of  impulsiveness  to  which  Ulster  owes  so  much  of  its 
progress  and  prosperity.  He  represents  the  race  which  has  been  described  as  4  the  vertebral 
column  of  Ulster,  giving  it  at  once  its  strength  and  uprightness ' — a  race  masculine  alike  in 
its  virtues  and  faults — solid,  sedate,  and  plodding — and  distinguished  both  at  home  and 
abroad  by  shrewdness  of  head,  thoroughgoing  ways,  and  moral  tenacity.  The  Ulsterman  is, 
above  all  things,  able  to  stand  alone,  and  to  stand  firmly  on  his  own  feet.  He  is  called  '  the 
sturdy  Northern,'  from  his  firmness  and  independence  and  his  adherence  to  truth  and  pro- 
bity. He  is  thoroughly  practical.  He  studies  uses,  respects  common  things,  and  cultivates 
the  prose  of  human  life.  The  English  despise  the  Irish  as  aimless,  but  not  the  man  of 
Ulster,  who  has  a  supreme  eye  to  facts,  and  is  'locked  and  bolted  to  results.'  There  is  a 
business-like  tone  in  his  method  of  speaking.  He  never  wastes  a  word,  yet  on  occasion  he 
can  speak  with  volubility.  He  is  as  dour  and  dogged  on  occasion  as  a  Scotchman,  with,  how- 
ever, generally  less  of  that  infusion  of  sternness — so  peculiarly  Scotch — which  is  really  the 
result  of  a  strong  habitual  relation  between  thought  and  action.  English  tourists  notice  the 
stiff  and  determined  manner  of  the  Ulsterman  in  his  unwillingness  to  give  way  to  you  at  fair 
or  market,  on  the  ground  that  one  man  is  as  good  as  another.  The  Ulsterman,  no  matter 
what  his  politics,  is  democratic  in  spirit  ;  and  his  loyalty  is  not  personal,  like  that  of  the  Celt, 
but  rather  a  respect  for  institutions.  He  has  something,  too,  of  the  Scotch  pugnacity  of 
mind,  and  always  seems,  in  conversation,  as  if  he  were  afraid  of  making  too  large  admissions. 
Mr.  Matthew  Arnold  speaks  of  '  sweet  reasonableness  '  as  one  of  the  noblest  elements  of  cul- 
ture and  national  life.  The  Ulsterman  has  the  reasonableness,  but  he  is  not  sweet.  A 
southern  Irishman  says  of  him  :  '  The  Northerns,  like  their  own  hills,  are  rough  but  health- 
some, and,  though  often  plain-spoken  even  to  bluntness,  there  is  no  kinder-hearted  peasantry 
in  the  world.'  But  he  is  certainly  far  inferior  to  the  Celtic  Irishman  in  good  manners  and  in 
the  art  of  pleasing.  Though  not  so  reserved  or  grave  as  the  Scotchman,  and  with  rather  more 
social  talent,  he  is  inferior  to  the  Southern  in  pliancy,  suppleness,  and  bonhomie.  He  hates 
ceremony  and  is  wanting  in  politeness.  He  is  rough  and  ready,  and  speaks  his  mind  without 
reserve.  He  has  not  the  silky  flattery  and  courteous  tact  of  the  Southern.  A  Killarney  beg- 
garman  will  utter  more  civil  things  in  half  an  hour  to  a  stranger  than  an  Ulsterman  in  all  his 
life  ;  but  the  Ulsterman  will  retort  that  the  Southern  is  '  too  sweet  to  be  wholesome.'  Cer- 
tainly, if  an  Ulsterman  does  not  care  about  you,  he  will  neither  say  nor  look  as  if  he  did. 
You  know  where  to  find  him  ;  he  is  no  hypocrite.  The  Celt,  with  his  fervent  and  fascinating 
manner,  far  surpasses  him  in  making  friends  whom  he  will  not  always  keep  ;  while  the  Ulster- 
man,  not  so  attractive  a  mortal  at  the  outset,  improves  upon  acquaintance,  and  is  considera- 
bly more  stanch  in  his  friendships.  Strangers  say  the  mixture  of  Protestant  fierte  with 
good-nature  and  good-humor  gives  to  the  Ulsterman  a  tone  rather  piquant  than  unpleasing. 
Like  some  cross-grained  woods,  he  admits  of  high  polish,  and  when  chastened  by  culture  and 
religion,  he  turns  out  a  very  high  style  of  man.  He  differs  from  the  Celt,  again,  in  the  way 
he  takes  his  pleasures  ;  for  he  follows  work  with  such  self-concentration  that  he  never  thinks 

r     ~h  e 
UNIVERSITY 


142  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

of  looking  about  him,  like  the  Celt,  for  objects  to  amuse  or  excite.  He  has  few  holidays  (unlike 
the  Celt,  whose  holidays  take  all  the  temper  out  of  labor),  and  he  hardly  knows  how  to  employ 
them  except  in  party  processions. 

"  The  Ulsterman  is  not  imaginative  or  traditional,  chiefly,  because  his  affections  strike  no 
deep  root  into  Irish  history.  The  Celt  is  more  steeped  in  poetry  and  romance  ;  the  Ulsterman 
knows  almost  nothing  of  fairy  mythology,  or  of  the  love  of  semi-historic  legend  which  fires 
the  imagination  of  the  Celt.  The  ghost  is  almost  the  exclusive  property  of  the  ancient  race. 
The  Ulsterman  has  certainly  lost  his  share,  or  at  least  his  interest,  in  such  things,  although  he 
is  surrounded,  like  the  Celt,  by  all  the  old  monuments  of  pagan  times,  each  with  a  memory 
and  a  tale  as  gray  as  the  stone  itself.  It  is  probably  because  he  is  so  imaginative  that  the 
Celt  has  not  such  a  real  possession  of  the  present  as  the  Ulsterman  ;  for  those  who  think  too 
much  of  a  splendid  past,  whether  it  be  real  or  imaginary,  are  usually  apt  to  think  too  little  of 
the  present,  and  the  remark  has  been  made  that  the  poetry  of  the  Celt  is  that  of  a  race  that  has 
seen  better  days,  for  there  is  an  almost  total  want  of  the  fine  old  Norse  spirit  of  self-reliance, 
and  of  making  the  best  possible  use  of  the  present.  In  one  of  his  fits  of  despondency,  Goethe 
envied  America  its  freedom  from  ruined  castles,  useless  remembrances,  and  vain  disputes, 
which  entangle  old  nations  and  trouble  their  hearts  while  they  ought  to  be  strong  for  present 
action.     Certainly  the  Ulsterman  has  not  allowed  himself  to  be  encumbered  in  any  such  way. 

"  People  have  said  of  Ulstermen,  as  they  have  said  of  the  Scotchmen,  that  they  are  des- 
titute of  wit  and  humor  ;  but  they  certainly  have  wut,  if  they  have  not  wit,  and  as  practised 
in  the  northeastern  part  of  the  province,  it  corresponds  very  nearly  with  what  is  properly 
humor.  It  has  not  the  spontaneity,  the  freshness,  the  oddity,  the  extravagance  of  Celtic 
humor,  which  upsets  our  gravity  on  the  instant ;  it  has  not  the  power  of  '  pitching  it  strong ' 
or  '  drawing  the  long-bow '  like  the  humor  of  America  ;  nor  has  it  the  sparkling  and  volatile 
characteristics  of  French  wit.  It  is  dry,  caustic,  and  suggestive,  on  the  whole  rather  reticent 
of  words,  and,  in  fact,  very  Scotch  in  character  ;  and  the  fun  is  contained  rather  in  the  whole 
series  of  conceptions  called  up  by  a  set  of  anecdotes  and  stories  than  by  any  smart  quip  or 
flash  at  the  close.  Often  the  humor,  as  in  Scotland,  lies  not  in  what  is  said  but  in  what  is 
suggested,  the  speaker  all  the  while  apparently  unconscious  of  saying  anything  to  excite  amuse- 
ment or  laughter.  Many  of  the  illustrations  are,  like  those  of  Dean  Ramsay,  of  an  ecclesias- 
tical character  ;  for  the  Ulsterman,  like  the  Scotchman,  makes  religion  a  condition  of  social 
existence,  and  demands  with  an  unsparing  rigor,  on  the  part  of  all  his  neighbors,  a  certain  par- 
ticipation in  the  ordinances  of  religion.     .     .     . 

4 '  We  need  hardly  say  that  Presbyterianism  runs  strong  in  the  native  current  of  Ulster 
blood.  It  has  a  good  deal  of  the  douce  Davie  Dean  type,  and  is  resolutely  opposed  to  all 
religious  innovations.  It  was  Dean  Swift  who  said,  when  he  saw  the  stone-cutters  effacing 
the  cherub  faces  from  the  old  stonework  of  an  Episcopal  church  which  was  to  do  duty  as  a 
Presbyterian  edifice,  '  Look  at  these  rascally  Presbyterians,  chiselling  the  very  Popery  out  of 
the  stones  ! '  Mr.  Froude  says  it  was  the  one  mistake  of  Swift's  life,  that  he  misunderstood 
the  Presbyterians.  It  is  not  generally  known  that  there  was  a  Janet  Geddes  in  Ulster.  At  the 
Restoration,  the  celebrated  Jeremy  Taylor  appointed  an  Episcopal  successor  at  Comber, 
County  Down,  to  replace  an  excellent  Presbyterian  worthy,  who  refused  conformity.  The 
women  of  the  parish  collected,  pulled  the  new  clergyman  out  of  the  pulpit,  and  tore  his  white 
surplice  to  ribbons.  They  were  brought  to  trial  at  Downpatrick,  and  one  of  the  female  wit- 
nesses made  the  following  declaration  :  '  And  maun  a'  tell  the  truth,  the  haile  truth,  and 
naethin  but  the  truth  ? '  '  You  must,'  was  the  answer.  '  Weel,  then,'  was  her  fearless  avowal, 
4  these  are  the  hands  that  poo'd  the  white  sark  ower  his  heed.'  It  is  Presbyterianism  that 
has  fixed  the  religious  tone  of  the  whole  province,  though  the  Episcopalians  possess,  likewise, 
much  of  the  religious  vehemence  of  their  neighbors,  and  have  earned  among  English  High 
Churchmen  the  character  of  being  Puritan  in  their  spirit  and  theology. 

"  Arthur  Helps,  in  one  of  his  pleasant  essays,  says  that  the  first  rule  for  success  in  life  is 
to  get  yourself  born,  if  you  can,  north  of  the  Tweed  ;  and  we  should  say  it  would  not  be  a 


Scottish  Achievement  143 

bad  sort  of  advice  to  an  Irishman  to  get  himself  born,  if  possible,  north  of  the  Boyne.  .  .  . 
He  might  have  to  part  with  something  of  his  quickness  of  perception,  his  susceptibility  to 
external  influence,  and  his  finer  imagination  ;  but  he  would  gain  in  working-power,  and 
especially  in  the  one  great  quality  indispensable  to  success — self-containedness,  steadiness, 
impassibility  to  outward  excitements  or  distracting  pleasures.  It  is  this  good  quality,  together 
with  his  adaptability,  that  accounts  for  the  success  of  the  Ulsterman  in  foreign  countries. 
He  may  be  hard  in  demeanor,  pragmatical  in  mind,  literal  and  narrow,  almost  without  a 
spark  of  imagination  ;  but  he  is  the  most  adaptable  of  men,  and  accepts  people  he  does  not 
like  in  his  grave,  stiff  way,  reconciling  himself  to  the  facts  or  the  facts  to  himself.  He  pushes 
along  quietly  to  his  proper  place,  not  using  his  elbows  too  much,  and  is  not  hampered  by 
traditions  like  the  Celt.  He  succeeds  particularly  well  in  America  and  in  India,  not  because 
Ulstermen  help  one  another  and  get  on  like  a  corporation  ;  for  he  is  not  clannish  like  the 
Scottish  Highlanders  or  the  Irish  Celts,  the  last  of  whom  unfortunately  stick  together  like 
bees,  and  drag  one  another  down  instead  of  up.  No  foreign  people  succeed  in  America  unless 
they  mix  with  the  native  population.  It  is  out  of  Ulster  that  her  hardy  sons  have  made  the 
most  of  their  talents.  It  was  an  Ulsterman  of  Donegal,  Francis  Makemie,  who  founded 
American  Presbyterianism  in  the  early  part  of  the  last  century,  just  as  it  was  an  Ulsterman  of 
the  same  district,  St.  Columbkille,  who  converted  the  Picts  of  Scotland  in  the  sixth  century. 
Four  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States  and  one  Vice-president  have  been  of  Ulster  ex- 
traction :  James  Monroe  [?],  James  Knox  Polk,  John  C.  Calhoun,  and  James  Buchanan. 
General  Andrew  Jackson  was  the  son  of  a  poor  Ulster  emigrant  who  settled  in  North  Carolina 
towards  the  close  of  the  last  century.  '  I  was  born  somewhere,'  he  said,  '  between  Carrick- 
fergus  and  the  United  States.'  Bancroft  and  other  historians  recognize  the  value  of  the 
Scotch-Irish  element  in  forming  the  society  of  the  Middle  and  Southern  States.  It  has  been 
the  boast  of  Ulstermen  that  the  first  general  who  fell  in  the  American  war  of  the  Revolution 
was  an  Ulsterman — Richard  Montgomery,  who  fought  at  the  siege  of  Quebec  ;  that  Samuel 
Finley,  president  of  Princeton  College,  and  Francis  Allison,  pronounced  by  Stiles,  the  presi- 
dent of  Yale,  to  be  the  greatest  classical  scholar  in  the  United  States,  had  a  conspicuous  place 
in  educating  the  American  mind  to  independence  ;  that  the  first  publisher  of  a  daily  paper  in 
America  was  a  Tyrone  man  named  Dunlap  ;  that  the  marble  palace  of  New  York,  where  the 
greatest  business  in  the  world  is  done  by  a  single  firm,  was  the  property  of  the  late  Alexander 
T.  Stewart,  a  native  of  Lisburn,  County  Down  ;  that  the  foremost  merchants,  such  as  the 
Browns  and  Stewarts,  are  Ulstermen  ;  and  that  the  inventors  of  steam-navigation,  telegraphy, 
and  the  reaping  machine  —  Fulton,  Morse,  and  McCormick  —  are  either  Ulstermen  or  the 
sons  of  Ulstermen. 

"  Ulster  can  also  point  with  pride  to  the  distinguished  career  of  her  sons  in  India.  The 
Lawrences,  Henry  and  John, —  the  two  men  by  whom,  regarding  merely  the  human  instru- 
ments employed,  India  has  been  preserved,  rescued  from  anarchy,  and  restored  to  a  position 
of  a  peaceful  and  progressive  dependency, —  were  natives  of  County  Derry.  Sir  Robert 
Montgomery  was  born  in  the  city  of  Derry  ;  Sir  James  Emerson  Tennant  was  a  native  of 
Belfast ;  Sir  Francis  Hincks  is  a  member  of  an  Ulster  family  remarkable  for  great  variety  of 
talent.  While  Ulster  has  given  one  viceroy  to  India,  it  has  given  two  to  Canada  in  the  per- 
sons of  Lord  Lisgar  and  Lord  Dufferin.  Sir  Henry  Pottinger,  who  attained  celebrity  as  a 
diplomatist,  and  was  afterward  appointed  governor-general  of  Hong  Kong,  was  a  native  of 
Belfast.  Besides  the  gallant  General  Nicholson,  Ulster  has  given  a  whole  gazetteful  of  heroes 
to  India.  It  has  always  taken  a  distinguished  place  in  the  annals  of  war.  An  Ulsterman 
was  with  Nelson  at  Trafalgar,  another  with  Wellington  at  Waterloo.  General  Rollo  Gilles- 
pie, Sir  Robert  Kane,  Lord  Moira,  and  the  Chesneys  were  all  from  County  Down.  Ulster- 
men  have  left  their  mark  on  the  world's  geography  as  explorers,  for  they  furnished  Sir  John 
Franklin  with  the  brave  Crozier,  from  Banbridge,  his  second  in  command,  and  then  sent  an 
Ulsterman,  McClintock,  to  find  his  bones,  and  another  Ulsterman,  McClure,  to  discover  the 
passage  Franklin  had  sought  in  vain.     .     .     . 


v-" 


144  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

"We  have  already  spoken  of  the  statesmanlike  ability  of  Ulstermen  abroad.  Mention 
may  now  be  made  of  at  least  one  statesman  at  home —  Lord  Castlereagh  —  who  was  a  native 
of  County  Down,  and  the  son  of  the  first  Marquis  of  Londonderry,  who  was  a  Presbyterian 
elder  till  the  day  of  his  death.  The  name  of  Castlereagh  may  not  be  popular  in  any  part  of 
Ireland  on  account  of  the  bloody  recollections  of  the  rebellion  of  1798  ;  but  his  reputation  as 
a  statesman  has  undoubtedly  risen  of  late  years,  for  it  is  now  known  that  he  was  not  such  an 
absolutist  or  ultraist  as  has  been  generally  imagined.  He  possessed  in  perfection  the  art  of 
managing  men,  and  excelled  as  a  diplomatist,  while  he  had  an  enormous  capacity  for  work  as 
an  administrator.  For  most  of  his  career  he  had  a  very  remarkable  man  for  his  private  sec- 
retary, Alexander  Knox,  a  native  of  Derry,  whose  literary  remains  have  been  edited  by 
Bishop  Jebb,  and  whose  conversational  powers  are  said  to  have  recalled  those  of  Dr.  Johnson 
himself.  Lord  Macaulay  calls  him  '  an  altogether  remarkable  man.'  George  Canning,  the 
statesman  who  detached  England  from  the  influences  of  Continental  despotism  and  restored 
her  to  her  proper  place  in  Europe,  who  was  the  first  minister  to  perceive  the  genius  and  abilities 
of  Wellington,  and  who  opened  that  '  Spanish  ulcer  '  which  Napoleon  at  St.  Helena  declared 
to  be  the  main  cause  of  his  ruin,  was  the  son  of  a  Derry  gentleman  of  ancient  and  respectable 
family.  Lord  Plunket,  who  was  equally  celebrated  in  politics,  law,  and  oratory,  was  a  native 
of  Enniskillen,  where  his  father,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Plunket,  was  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  To  come  down  nearer  to  our  own  times,  three  men  who  have  made  their  mark  on 
the  national  politics  of  Ireland  —  John  Mitchell,  Charles  Gavan  Duffy,  and  Isaac  Butt  — 
belong  to  Ulster.  The  first  was  the  son  of  a  Unitarian  minister,  and  was  born  in  County 
Derry  ;  the  second  is  the  son  of  a  County  Monaghan  farmer  ;  the  third,  the  son  of  the  late 
rector  of  Stranorlar  parish  in  County  Donegal.  An  Ulsterman  —  Lord  Cairns  —  now  [1876] 
presides  over  the  deliberations  of  the  House  of  Lords. 

"  But  we  must  speak  of  the  more  purely  intellectual  work  of  Ulstermen,  in  the  walks  of 
literature,  science,  and  philosophy.  It  has  been  remarked  that,  though  their  predominant 
qualities  are  Scotch,  they  have  not  inherited  the  love  of  abstract  speculation.  Yet  they  have 
produced  at  least  one  distinguished  philosopher  in  the  person  of  Sir  Francis  Hutchison,  pro- 
fessor of  moral  philosophy  in  the  University  of  Glasgow  in  the  last  century,  and,  if  we  may 
follow  the  opinion  of  Dr.  McCosh,  the  true  founder  of  the  Scottish  school  of  philosophy.  He 
was  born  at  Saintfield,  County  Down,  where  his  father  was  a  Presbyterian  minister.  In 
natural  science,  Ulster  can  boast  of  Sir  Hans  Sloane,  a  native  of  Killyleagh,  County  Down  ; 
of  Dr.  Black,  the  famous  chemist,  a  native  of  Belfast ;  of  Dr.  James  Thompson  and  his  son, 
Sir  William  Thompson,  both  natives  of  County  Down  ;  and  of  William  Thomson  and  Robert 
Patterson,  both  of  Belfast.  In  theology  and  pulpit  oratory,  Ulstermen  have  always  taken  a 
distinguished  place.  If  Donegal  produced  a  deistical  writer  so  renowned  as  John  Toland, 
Fermanagh  reared  the  theologian  who  was  to  combat  the  whole  school  of  Deism  in  the  person 
of  the  Rev.  Charles  Leslie,  the  author  of  A  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  the  Deists.  The 
masterly  treatise  of  Dr.  William  Magee,  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  on  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment still  holds  its  place  in  theological  literature.  He  was  an  Enniskillener,  like  Plunket, 
and  his  grandson,  the  present  bishop  of  Peterborough,  is  one  of  the  most  eloquent  divines  on 
the  English  bench.  There  is  no  religious  body,  indeed,  in  Ulster,  that  cannot  point  to  at 
least  one  eminent  theologian  with  a  fame  far  extending  beyond  the  province.  The  Presby- 
terians are  proud  of  the  reputation  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Cooke,  of  Belfast ;  the  Unitarians,  of 
the  Rev.  Henry  Montgomery,  of  Dunmurry,  near  Belfast ;  the  Baptists  of  the  Rev.  Alexander 
Carson,  of  Tubbermore,  County  Derry,  the  author  of  the  ablest  treatise  ever  written  on  behalf 
of  Baptist  principles  ;  the  Methodists,  of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  learned  commentator  on  the 
Scriptures,  who  was  born  at  Maghera,  in  the  same  county  ;  and  the  Covenanters,  of  the  Rev. 
John  Paul,  who  had  all  the  logical  acuteness  of  a  schoolman.  In  oratory,  Ulstermen  are 
proud  of  the  great  abilities  of  Plunket,  Cooke,  Montgomery,  Isaac  Butt,  and  Lord  Cairns. 
In  pure  scholarship  they  name  Dr.  Archibald  Maclaine,  chaplain  at  The  Hague,  and 
translator  of  Mosheim's  History ;  Dr.  Edward  Hincks,  of  Killyleagh,  County  Down,  the 


Scottish  Achievement  145 

decipherer  of  the  Nineveh  tablets  ;  and  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  the  eminent  biblical  scholar 
and  critic.     .     .     . 

"  Ulster  claims  the  sculptor,  Patrick  McDowell  ;  and  Crawford,  whose  works  adorn  the 
Capitol  at  Washington,  was  born,  we  believe,  at  sea,  his  parents  being  emigrants  from  the 
neighborhood  of  Ballyshannon ,  County  Donegal.  But  we  cannot  remember  a  single  painter, 
or  musical  composer,  or  singer,  who  belongs  to  Ulster.  In  the  art  of  novel-writing  there  is 
William  Carleton,  already  referred  to,  the  most  realistic  sketcher  of  Irish  character  who  has 
ever  lived,  and  who  far  excels  Lever,  and  Lover,  and  Edgeworth  in  the  faithfulness  of  his 
pictures,  though  he  fails  in  the  broader  representations  of  Hibernian  humor.  No  one  has  so 
well  sounded  the  depths  of  the  Irish  heart,  or  so  skilfully  portrayed  its  kinder  and  nobler 
feelings.  Ulster  was  never  remarkable  for  pathos.  Carleton  is  an  exception  ;  but  he  belonged 
to  the  ancient  race,  and  first  saw  the  light  in  the  home  of  a  poor  peasant  in  Clogher,  County 
Tyrone.  The  only  other  novel-writers  that  Ulster  can  boast  of  —  none  of  them  at  all  equal 
in  national  flavor  to  Carleton  —  are  Elizabeth  Hamilton,  the  author  of  The  Cottagers  of 
Glenburnie,  who  lived  at  the  beginning  of  this  century  ;  William  H.  Maxwell,  the  author  of 
Stories  of  Waterloo ;  Captain  Mayne  Reid,  the  writer  of  sensational  tales  about  Western 
America;  Francis  Browne;  and  Mrs.  Riddle,  the  author  of  George  Geith.  In  dramatic 
literature,  Ulster  can  boast  of  George  Farquhar,  the  author  of  The  Beaux'  Stratagem,  who  was 
the  son  of  a  Derry  clergyman,  and  of  Macklin,  the  actor  as  well  as  the  author,  known  to  us 
by  his  play  The  Man  of  the  World.  The  only  names  it  can  boast  of  in  poetry  are  Samuel 
Ferguson,  the  author  of  The  Forging  of  the  Anchor ;  William  Allingham,  the  author  of 
Laurence  Bloomfieldy  with  two  or  three  of  lesser  note." 

6  The  affinity  between  France  and  America  is  not  limited  to  the  latter's  appreciation  and 
imitation  in  matters  of  art  alone.  At  an  early  day  in  the  history  of  this  country,  that  affinity 
extended  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  sesthetical  amenities.  It  included  the  fields  of  politics,  of 
science,  and  of  warfare.  The  reason  for  this  is  not  far  to  seek.  There  are  many  people  in 
America  who  never  will,  nor  do  they  care  to,  understand  aright  the  history  of  the  building  of 
the  American  nation  ;  and  to  these  people  the  idea  of  such  a  thing  as  a  close  bond  of  union 
and  sympathy  with  France,  which  for  so  long  a  time  obviously  existed  in  America,  is  one  of 
the  things  which  they  cannot  explain,  and  for  which  they  can  only  account  by  classing  it  as 
an  anomaly.  To  honest  students  of  their  country's  history,  however,  and  to  all  who  can  see 
beyond  their  own  immediate  community  or  horizon,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  no  anomaly 
in  a  Franco- American  alliance  ;  and  that  to  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  American  people 
whose  forefathers  were  here  in  pre-Revolutionary  days,  such  a  union  was  quite  as  much  to  be 
expected  as,  at  other  times,  would  be  an  alliance  with  England.  The  Ancient  League  between 
Scotland  and  France,  which  existed  from  before  the  time  of  Bruce  until  the  days  of  Knox,  was 
an  alliance  for  defence  and  offence  against  the  common  enemy  of  both ;  and  that  League  was  the 
veritable  prototype  of  the  later  alliance  between  America  and  France  against  the  same  enemy. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE    TUDOR-STUART    CHURCH    RESPONSIBLE    FOR   EARLY 
AMERICAN    ANIMOSITY   TO    ENGLAND 

THE  English  Church  Establishment  owed  its  origin  primarily  to  the  vices 
of  Henry  VIII.,1  a  prince  whose  abnormal  appetite  for  new  wives  led 
him  into  excesses  too  great  even  for  the  absolution  of  the  Roman  pontiff  ; 
though  it  is  altogether  likely  that  Henry's  divorce  of  Catherine  of  Aragon 
was  refused  by  the  Pope  more  because  it  menaced  the  papal  ascendancy 
than  because  it  troubled  the  papal  conscience.  Organized  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, Henry's  "  Church  "  naturally  obeyed  in  all  things  the  will  of 
its  creator;  and,  as  the  conditions  required,  it  was  afterwards  the  pander, 
flatterer,  or  main  coadjutor  of  his  various  successors;  so  that,  down  to  the 
beginning  of  the  present  century  the  religion  of  the  loyal  Englishman,  as  com- 
pared with  that  of  others,  had  in  it  more  that  was  of  a  secular  nature,  and 
in  all  things  subordinate  to  the  State.  The  English  Episcopalian  has  until 
recently  been  taught  that  the  king  is  the  supreme  head  of  the  "  Church," 
and  his  universal  worship  of  the  royal  fetich  is,  perhaps,  nothing  more  than 
a  manifestation  of  the  same  emotions  which  in  other  religious  establishments 
differently  constituted  find  expression  in  the  worship  of  departed  ancestors, 
of  the  saints,  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  of  the  Deity.  As  a  result  of  this  teach- 
ing, the  Englishman's  veneration  for  British  royalty  became  almost  as  strong 
as  that  with  which  other  men  regard  things  holy,  and  was  certainly  more  far- 
reaching  in  its  effects.  The  compact  between  the  Church  Establishment  and 
royalty  was  in  the  nature  of  a  close  partnership,  with  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions clearly  laid  down  and  accepted  on  both  sides.  The  kings  have  ever 
since  relied  chiefly  upon  their  bishops  to  maintain  the  loyalty  of  the  com- 
mon people  to  the  crown,  and  to  that  end  the  bishops  have  heretofore 
effectively  used  that  most  powerful  agency,  religion. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Church  soon  secured  from  the  king  a  division  of 
the  power  thus  obtained  and  a  goodly  share  of  the  material  acquisitions  re- 
sulting from  its  exercise.  It  has  been  necessary  for  both  parties  to  the  com- 
pact, as  a  matter  of  self-preservation,  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of  new  elements 
into  the  field,  and  so  long  as  it  could  possibly  be  done  they  were  kept  out. 
Early  manifestations  of  spiritual  religion,  accordingly,  were  viewed  with 
alarm  and  abhorrence  by  bishop  and  king  alike,  stigmatized  as  dissension  by 
the  one  and  sedition  by  the  other,  and  repressed  as  treason  by  both.  It  is  only 
during  the  present  century,  with  the  spread  of  knowledge  among  the  masses, 
that  the  great  body  of  the  English  people  has  learned  that  there  is  not  ne- 
cessarily any  more  than  a  nominal  kinship  between  the  terms  ' '  bishop  ' '  and 
11  religion  ";  and  that  the  consequent  decadence  of  the  Anglican  Church  has 

146 


Early  American  Animosity  to  England  147 

resulted.  The  crimes  of  the  founder  of  that  Church,  connived  at  and  par- 
ticipated in  by  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,3  have  scarcely  a  parallel 
in  any  history  but  that  of  the  Turk ;  and  to  call  Henry  a  reformer  of  religion 
is  analogous  to  saying  that  the  fear  of  the  devil  is  the  beginning  of  god- 
liness. The  vain  Elizabeth,  likewise,  committed  so  many  heinous  offences 
in  the  name  of  religion,  that  their  aggregate  evil  would  far  outweigh  the 
good  of  her  reputed  contribution  to  its  reformation.8  Therefore,  when  the 
Scottish  nation  of  God-worshippers  became  associated  with  the  English  na- 
tion of  king- worshippers,  under  James  Stuart's  rule,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  the  English  "  spiritual  lords  "  should  find  nothing  but  error  and  trea- 
son in  the  teachings  of  the  Scottish  system  of  religion,  a  system  which  did 
not  recognize  the  king  as  the  supreme  head  and  fountain  of  the  Church. 

Under  such  an  institution,  then,  as  Henry  founded, — not  truly  a  spiritual 
church,  but  an  offshoot  of  despotism, — the  persecutions  of  the  Presbyterians 
in  Scotland  followed  the  succession  of  James  Stuart  to  the  throne  of  Eliza- 
beth as  a  matter  of  course.  Hence,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  in  Scotland 
should  be  fought  and  won  the  first  battles  that  established  the  principle  for 
which  the  Scottish  martyrs  died — that  in  matters  of  conscience  the  king  was 
not  supreme,4  and  that  the  State  and  Church  were  distinct  and  separate  in- 
stitutions, and  not  to  be  joined  together  as  one.6 

In  England  and  in  English  history  it  is  customary  to  speak  of  Henry 
VIII.'s  Roman  Catholic  daughter  as  "  Bloody  Mary  "  because  she  burned 
some  scores  of  Protestants  and  one  or  two  Episcopalian  bishops.8  Compared 
with  many  of  the  successors  of  those  bishops,  however,  and  with  some  of  her 
own  successors,  Queen  Mary  was  as  red  to  black.  Where  she  killed  scores, 
they  destroyed  thousands;  while  she  was  a  wronged,  superstitious,  sickly,  and 
unbalanced  woman, —  a  daughter  of  Spain  and  of  Henry  Tudor, —  brooding 
over  and  avenging  the  barbarities  inflicted  upon  herself,  her  mother,  and 
her  mother's  Church, —  they  were  set  up  as  teachers,  exemplars,  and  rivals 
of  Christ  and  the  prophets.7  Her  crimes  were  those  of  retaliation,  ignorance, 
and  superstition ;  theirs  were  deep-planned,  self-seeking,  and  malicious.  The 
English  Church  Establishment,  for  its  years,  has  fully  as  much  to  answer 
for  that  is  evil  as  any  like  organization  by  which  the  name  of  religion  has 
ever  been  disgraced.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  in  all  the  history  of 
the  inception  and  progress  of  those  movements  which  have  given  to  Eng- 
land her  boasted  boon  of  British  liberty  and  to  the  world  at  large  the  benef- 
icent results  arising  from  the  victories  of  the  British  conscience,  we  find 
their  first  chief  opposer  and  vilifier  in  the  Established  Church.8 

However,  the  murdering  missionaries  of  this  Establishment,  turned  loose 
in  Scotland  by  the  Stuarts  in  the  seventeenth  century,  did  not  all  pursue 
their  bloody  work  of  destruction  unmolested.  One  of  the  chief  agents  of 
the  persecution,  Archbishop  Sharp,  met  his  death  at  the  point  of  the 
sword,  and  died  even  as  Cardinal  Beaton  had  died  in  Scotland  more  than  a 
century  before,  with  no  time  for  repentance,  and  no  chance  for  an  earthly 


148  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

benediction.  Neither  can  their  course  be  regarded  as  productive  of  results 
ultimately  disastrous  to  the  cause  of  humanity,  however  great  the  sufferings 
of  their  immediate  victims;  but  rather,  on  the  contrary,  it  proved  to  be  the 
means  of  hastening  the  coming  of  some  of  mankind's  greatest  blessings.  It 
was  the  inciting  cause  of  the  great  revolution  that  began  in  Scotland  in  1638, 
spread  over  England  a  few  years  later,  and  reached  its  culmination  when  the 
head  of  the  Anglican  Church's  earthly  god  was  cut  off.  Afterwards,  it  drove 
thousands  of  the  Scottish  Presbyterians  into  Ireland.  Without  the  presence 
of  these  refugees  in  Ulster  in  1689  the  complete  success  of  the  revolution  of 
that  period  would  have  been  impossible. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  Scots  saved  Ireland  to  William,  and 
made  it  possible  for  him  to  succeed  to  the  English  crown,  the  measure  of 
their  cup  of  persecution  was  not  yet  filled;  and  for  more  than  half  a  century 
afterwards  the  British  Government,  chiefly  through  the  Episcopal  Establish- 
ment, continued  to  run  up  a  debt  of  hatred  with  these  Scottish  emigrants  — 
a  debt  that  accumulated  rapidly  during  the  first  years  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, and  the  evidences  of  which  were  handed  down  from  father  to  son  and 
added  to  in  each  succeeding  generation.  After  1689,  it  received  its  first 
fresh  increments  in  Ireland  by  the  passage  of  certain  Parliamentary  acts, 
tending  to  the  restriction  and  resulting  in  the  destruction  of  the  woollen 
industry;  they  being  the  final  ones  in  a  series  of  discriminating  enactments 
which  began  at  the  Restoration  in  favor  of  the  English  manufacturers 
as  against  those  of  Ireland.8 

This  was  followed  in  1704  by  the  passage  of  the  bill  containing  the  Eng- 
lish Test  Act.  This  act  practically  made  outlaws  of  the  Presbyterians  in 
Ireland,  and  was  one  of  the  chief  inciting  causes  of  the  emigration  to 
America  which  increased  with  such  rapidity  during  the  first  twenty  years 
after  its  enactment.10 

The  next  infliction  to  which  the  Ulster  Scots  were  subjected  was  that  of 
rack-renting  landlordism,  by  which  thousands  of  families  were  driven  out  of 
the  country  after  17 18.  Rents  were  increased  to  two  or  three  times  their 
former  amounts;  and  in  addition  to  this  extortion  the  Dissenters  were  still 
obliged  to  pay  the  blood-money  exacted  by  the  Established  Church  in  the 
form  of  tithes.11 

These  galling  and  unjust  discriminations  continued  with  more  or  less 
modified  severity  during  the  whole  period  between  the  passage  of  the  Test 
Act  and  the  time  of  the  final  throwing  off  of  the  British  yoke  by  those  whom 
its  operation  had  driven  to  America. 

It  is  said  by  most  American  historians  that  the  War  of  Independence  was 
not  a  suddenly  conceived  movement;  that  it  resulted  from  repeated  acts  of 
injustice  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  toward  the  American  colonies  subse- 
quent to  and  resulting  from  the  French  and  Indian  wars  of  1755  anc*  I1^3'y 
that  the  arbitrary  action  of  the  king's  representatives  in  America  began  to  be 
resented  by  some  of  the  citizens  fifteen  years  before  the  battle  of  Lexington; 


Early  American  Animosity  to  England  149 

that  in  Massachusetts  the  necessity  for  some  measure  of  relief  from 
ecclesiastical  and  governmental  tyranny  became  apparent  as  early  as  1761; 
and  that  the  political  agitation  of  the  next  decade  and  a  half  was  what  stirred 
the  people  up  to  a  sufficiently  adequate  realization  of  the  meaning  of  the 
oppressive  measures  inflicted  upon  New  England  by  Great  Britain,  and 
made  them  ready  to  accept  the  issue  when  it  was  finally  drawn,  and  to  abide 
by  its  consequences  when  they  became  apparent.  All  this  is  very  true,  so 
far  as  it  goes.  It  is  also  true  that  the  concentration  of  the  disciplinary 
measures  upon  the  devoted  patriots  of  Boston,  and  their  being  the  first  to 
suffer  from  those  measures  and  the  results  following  upon  their  attempted 
enforcement,  may  to  a  great  extent  account  for  the  eagerness  and  intensity 
with  which  those  people  precipitated  and  entered  upon  the  conflict.  But 
these  are  only  portions  of  the  truth,  and  he  who  would  read  American  his- 
tory aright  must  first  take  into  account  the  aggregate  value  of  the  contribu- 
tions to  America  in  men  and  measures  of  the  Holland  and  Palatinate  Dutch, 
the  Huguenot  French,  and  the  Lowland  and  Ulster  Scotch,  decide  just  how 
much  greater,  if  any,  is  America's  eighteenth-century  debt  to  England  and 
the  English  than  her  obligation  to  non-English  men  and  ideas  of  other  coun- 
tries, and  learn  the  whole  truth  —  that  to  no  one  man  or  set  of  men,  and  to 
no  one  exclusive  creed,  community,  race,  nationality,  or  sectional  division, 
is  due  the  credit  for  those  institutions  and  that  liberty  which  came  to  be 
called  American  after  the  events  of  1776. 

He  is,  indeed,  a  superficial  student  of  American  history  and  of  human 
nature,  who  can  see  the  workings  of  no  other  influences  at  that  time  than 
those  which  immediately  led  up  to  the  conflict  at  Lexington.12 

In  New  England,  to  be  sure,  there  was  no  long-seated  bitterness  against 
the  British  Government.  England  was  truly  the  mother  country  of  that 
province.  Their  grievances  were  recent ;  their  wounds  fresh.  Great  Britain 
in  its  restrictive  measures  against  Boston  Port  touched  their  pockets  as  well 
as  their  persons,  and  like  true  Englishmen  they  were  bound  to  fight  against 
any  encroachments  upon  their  guaranteed  rights  of  person  or  property. 

But  in  a  great  body  of  the  people  outside  of  New  England  the  causes 
were  deeper  and  of  more  ancient  origin.  Their  enmity  to  England  and  the 
English  government  dated  far  back  from  the  beginning  of  history.  It  was 
not  unlike  the  feeling  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Irish  in  America  toward  England 
at  the  present  day.  The  Scots  were  the  hereditary  foes  of  the  English  kings. 
Their  battles  with  the  English  had  made  of  the  Scottish  Lowlands  one  vast 
armed  camp  and  battle-field  during  the  larger  part  of  a  period  of  five  centuries 
after  the  year  1000. 18  Their  forbears  were  "  Scots  who  had  wi'  Wallace  bled." 
They  were  children  of  the  men  who  had  fought  the  English  at  Stirling  Bridge, 
at  Bannockburn,  and  "  on  Flodden's  dark  field."  Their  fathers  also  had 
perished  in  countless  numbers  before  the  malignant  fury  of  the  Anglican 
Establishment.  For  worshipping  God  as  their  consciences  dictated  they 
had  been  hunted  like  wild  beasts  by  the  merciless  dragoons  of  the  bishops; 


150  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

pursued  from  moor  to  glen  by  armed  bands  of  the  king's  soldiers,  their  chil- 
dren shot  down  like  dogs  by  the  ferocious  ruffians  employed  by  the  English 
Church,  or  doomed  to  a  fate  worse  than  death  by  savage  Highlanders,  sure 
of  a  promised  immunity,  whom  that  Church  had  turned  loose  upon  their 
defenceless  homes. 

The  Scotch  were  not  of  a  cowardly  race,  nor  were  they  weak  and  spirit- 
less louts,  subject  to  their  masters  for  life  or  death,  like  dumb,  driven  cattle. 
They  cannot  be  judged  by  modern  standards,  but  must  be  compared  with 
people  of  other  races  who  were  their  contemporaries.  It  is  true  they  en- 
dured unjust  persecutions  and  grievous  oppressions  for  long  periods  without 
open  complaint  or  effective  resistance.  But  they  rebelled  against  their 
tyrants  and  oppressors  earlier,  and  more  often,  and  more  efficaciously  than 
did  the  people  of  any  other  nation.  They  anticipated  the  English  by  a  full 
century  in  their  revolutions,  and  their  claim  for  the  rights  of  the  individual. 
They  were  more  than  two  centuries  ahead  of  the  French  in  fighting  and 
dying  for  the  principles  of  the  French  Revolution.  They  were  farther  ad- 
vanced three  centuries  ago  than  the  Germans  are  to-day  in  their  conceptions 
and  ideals  of  individual  liberty.  Buckle  well  says,  in  speaking  of  his  own 
English  race,  "If  we  compare  our  history  with  that  of  our  northern  neigh- 
bors, we  must  pronounce  ourselves  a  meek  and  submissive  people."  There 
have  been  more  rebellions  in  Scotland  than  in  any  other  country,  excepting 
some  of  the  Central  and  South  American  republics.  And  the  rebellions 
have  been  very  sanguinary,  as  well  as  very  numerous.  The  Scotch  have 
made  war  upon  most  of  their  kings,  and  put  to  death  many.  To  mention 
their  treatment  of  a  single  dynasty,  they  murdered  James  I.  and  James  III. 
They  rebelled  against  James  II.  and  James  VII.  They  laid  hold  of  James 
V.  and  placed  him  in  confinement.  Mary  they  immured  in  a  castle,  and 
afterwards  deposed.  Her  successor,  James  VI.,  they  imprisoned;  they  led 
him  captive  about  the  country,  and  on  one  occasion  attempted  his  life. 
Towards  Charles  I.  they  showed  the  greatest  animosity,  and  they  were  the 
first  to  restrain  his  mad  career.  Three  years  before  the  English  ventured  to 
rise  against  that  despotic  prince,  the  Scotch  boldly  took  up  arms  and  made 
war  on  him.  The  service  which  they  then  rendered  to  the  cause  of  liberty 
it  would  be  hard  to  overrate.  They  often  lacked  patriotic  leaders  at  home, 
and  their  progress  was  long  retarded  by  internecine  and  clan  strife.  They 
were  hard-headed,  fighting  ploughmen.  Though  with  a  deep  religious  char- 
acter, and  conscientiousness  to  an  extreme  that  often  has  seemed  ridiculous 
to  outsiders,  their  material  accomplishments  as  adventurers,  pioneers,  and 
traders,  in  statesmanship,  in  science,  in  metaphysics,  in  literature,  in  com- 
merce, in  finance,  in  invention,  and  in  war,  show  them  to  be  the  peers  of  the 
people  of  any  other  race  the  world  has  ever  known. 

Hence,  they  entered  upon  the  American  Revolutionary  contest  with  a 
deep-seated  hatred  of  England  inherited  from  the  past,  with  a  passionate 
desire  for  vengeance,  and  with  that  never-ceasing  persistence  which  is  their 


Early  American  Animosity  to  England  151 

chief  characteristic  as  a  race  " ;  and  in  tracing  their  history  down  to  this  point 
it  would  seem  as  if  we  could  see  the  working  of  some  inscrutable  principle 
of  Divine  compensation ;  for  without  the  later  presence  in  America  of  these 
descendants  of  the  martyred  Scottish  Covenanters  —  doubly  embittered  by 
the  remembrance  of  the  outrageous  wrongs  done  their  fathers  and  the  ex- 
perience of  similar  wrongs  inflicted  upon  themselves  and  their  families — the 
Revolution  of  1776  would  not  have  been  undertaken,  and  could  not  have 
been  accomplished.16 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XI. 

I  See  Appendix  H  (Henry  VIII. 's  Reformation  and  Church). 

8  Cranmer  first  suggested  to  Henry  a  means  by  which  he  might  free  himself  from  Catherine 
without  waiting  for  a  papal  divorce  ;  namely,  that  if  he  could  obtain  opinions  from  the  learned 
of  the  universities  of  Europe  to  the  effect  that  his  marriage  was  illegal  because  of  Catherine's 
having  been  his  deceased  brother's  wife,  then  no  divorce  would  be  necessary.  Just  how  these 
opinions  were  obtained  is  told  in  letters  of  Richard  Croke  and  others  in  Nos.  xcix.,  cxxvi., 
cxxviii.,  cxlvi.,  clvii.,  and  cciii.,  of  Pocock's  Records  of  the  Reformation  ;  and  also  by  a 
contemporary  of  Cranmer  (Cavendish,  Life  of  Wolsey,  Singer's  edition,  p.  206)  in  these 
words  :  "  There  was  inestimable  sums  of  money  given  to  the  famous  clerks  to  choke  them,  and 
in  especial  to  those  who  had  a  governance  and  custody  of  their  universities'  seals."  Later, 
Cranmer  pronounced  the  divorce  between  Catherine  and  Henry,  when  it  became  apparent 
that  the  Pope  would  not  consent  to  it ;  and  he  likewise  arbitrarily  divorced  Anne  and  Henry, 
and  declared  the  children  of  both  consorts  of  that  king  to  be  bastards.  When  finally  brought 
to  punishment  by  Mary  for  the  many  injuries  done  to  her  mother,  herself,  and  her  church, 
and  for  his  share  in  the  execution  of  the  Catholics,  he  basely  recanted  his  Protestantism  in  the 
vain  hope  of  saving  his  life. 

"  The  courage  that  Cranmer  had  shown  since  the  accession  of  Mary  gave  way  the 
moment  his  final  doom  was  announced.  The  moral  cowardice  with  the  lust  and  despotism 
of  Henry  displayed  itself  again  in  six  successive  recantations  by  which  he  hoped  to  purchase 
pardon." — Green,  History  of  the  English  People,  book  vi. ,  ch.  ii. 

3  * '  Upon  the  approach  of  the  Armada  many  of  the  Catholics  had  been  placed  in  prison  as 
a  precautionary  measure.  Even  this  hardship  did  not  turn  them  against  the  government. 
Those  confined  in  Ely  for  their  religion  signed  a  declaration  of  their  ' 4  readiness  to  fight  till 
death,  in  the  cause  of  the  queen,  against  all  her  enemies,  were  they  kings,  or  priests,  or 
popes,  or  any  other  potentate  whatsoever."  Before  1581,  three  Catholics  had  been  executed 
for  their  religion,  and  after  the  landing  of  Campian  and  Parsons,  a  few  Jesuits  were  added  to 
the  number.  Now,  directly  after  the  destruction  of  the  Armada,  which  proved  how  little 
danger  there  was  from  Rome,  a  selection  of  victims  was  made  from  the  Catholics  in  prison, 
as  if  to  do  honor  to  the  victory. 

II  Six  priests  were  taken,  whose  only  alleged  crime  was  the  exercise  of  their  priestly  office  ; 
four  laymen  who  had  been  reconciled  to  Mother  Church,  and  four  others  who  had  aided  or 
harbored  priests.  They  were  all  tried,  convicted,  and  sentenced  to  immediate  execution. 
Within  three  months,  fifteen  more  of  their  companions  were  dealt  with  in  the  same  manner, 
six  new  gallows  being  erected  for  their  execution.  It  was  not  so  much  as  whispered  that 
they  had  been  guilty  of  any  act  of  disloyalty.  Upon  their  trials  nothing  was  charged  against 
them  except  the  practice  of  their  religion.  This  was  called  treason,  and  they  met  the  bar- 
barous death  of  traitors,  being  cut  down  from  the  gallows  while  alive,  and  disembowelled 
when  in  the  full  possession  of  their  senses.  But  this  was  only  the  beginning  of  the  bloody 
work.  In  the  fourteen  years  which  elapsed  between  the  attempted  invasion  by  Spain  and  the 
death  of  Elizabeth,  sixty-one  Catholic  clergymen  (few  of  whom  were  Jesuits),  forty-seven 


152  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

laymen,  and  two  gentlewomen  suffered  capital  punishment  for  some  one  or  other  of  the 
spiritual  felonies  and  treasons  which  had  been  lately  created,  most  of  the  victims  being  drawn 
and  quartered. 

"  Many  writers,  when  alluding  to  this  butchery,  make  the  statement  that  it  was  not  a  relig- 
ious persecution  ;  that  these  victims  were  punished  for  treason  and  not  for  their  religion.  But 
when  a  statute,  in  defiance  of  all  principles  of  law,  makes  the  mere  practice  of  a  religious  rite 
punishable  as  an  act  of  treason,  it  is  the  paltriest  verbal  quibble  to  say  that  it  is  not  a  re- 
ligious persecution.  Under  such  a  definition,  all  of  Alva's  atrocities  in  the  Netherlands 
could  be  justified,  and  the  Inquisition  would  take  the  modest  place  of  a  legitimate  engine  of 
the  State." — Douglas  Campbell,  The  Puritan  in  Holland,  England,  and  America,  vol.  ii., 
pp.  110-112  (by  permission  of  Messrs.  Harper  &  Brothers). 

In  the  elections  for  the  New  Parliament  [1661]  the  zeal  for  church  and  king  swept 
all  hope  of  moderation  and  compromise  before  it.  .  .  .  The  new  members  were  yet 
better  Churchmen  than  loyalists.  ...  At  the  opening  of  their  session  they  ordered  every 
member  to  receive  the  communion,  and  the  League  and  Covenant  to  be  solemnly  burned  by 
the  common  hangman  in  Westminster  Hall.  The  bishops  were  restored  to  their  seats  in  the 
House  of  Lords.     The  conference  at  the  Savoy  between  the  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians 

broke  up  in  anger The  strongholds  of  this  party  were  the  corporations  of  the 

boroughs  ;  and  an  attempt  was  made  to  drive  them  from  these  by  the  Test  and  Corporation 
Act,  which  required  a  reception  of  the  communion  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Anglican 
Church,  a  renunciation  of  the  League  and  Covenant,  and  a  declaration  that  it  was  unlawful 
on  any  grounds  to  take  up  arms  against  the  King,  before  admission  to  municipal  offices.  A 
more  deadly  blow  was  dealt  at  the  Puritans  in  the  renewal  of  the  Uniformity  Act.  Not  only 
was  the  use  of  the  Prayer-book  and  the  Prayer-book  only,  enforced  in  all  public  worship,  but 
an  unfeigned  consent  and  assent  was  demanded  from  every  minister  of  the  Church  to  all 
which  was  contained  in  it ;  while  for  the  first  time  since  the  Reformation,  all  orders  save 
those  conferred  by  the  hands  of  bishops  were  legally  dissolved.  ...  It  was  the  close  of 
an  effort  which  had  been  going  on  ever  since  Elizabeth's  accession  to  bring  the  English  com- 
munion into  closer  relations  with  the  reformed  communions  of  the  Continent,  and  into  greater 
harmony  with  the  religious  instincts  of  the  nation  at  large.  The  Church  of  England  stood 
from  that  moment  isolated  and  alone  among  all  the  churches  of  the  Christian  world.  The 
Reformation  had  separated  it  irretrievably  from  those  which  still  clung  to  obedience  of  the 
Papacy.  By  its  rejection  of  all  but  Episcopal  orders,  the  Act  of  Uniformity  severed  it  as 
irretrievably  from  the  general  body  of  Protestant  churches,  whether  Lutheran  or  Reformed. 
And  while  thus  cut  off  from  all  healthy  religious  communication  with  the  world  without,  it 
sank  into  immorality  within.  With  the  expulsion  of  the  Puritan  clergy,  all  change,  all 
efforts  after  reform,  all  national  development,  suddenly  stopped.  From  that  time  to  this,  the 
Episcopal  Church  has  been  unable  to  meet  the  varying  spiritual  needs  of  its  adherents  by  any 
modification  of  its  government  or  Its  worship.  It  stands  alone  among  all  the  religious  bodies 
of  Western  Christendom  in  its  failure  through  two  hundred  years  to  devise  a  single  new 
service  of  prayer  or  of  praise. — Green's  Short  History,  pp.  606,  607. 

4  See  Appendix  I  (Scotland  vs.  The  Divine  Right  of  Kings). 

5  This  is  said  to  be  the  one  original  principle  contributed  by  America  to  the  science  of 
government,  but  whether  that  be  true  or  not,  it  came  wholly  and  solely  from  that  part  of  the 
American  people  whose  forefathers  had  died  for  it  in  Scotland.  The  doctrine  of  the  respon- 
sibility of  kings  to  their  subjects,  as  widely  disseminated  through  America  by  Thomas  Paine 
in  his  Common  Sense  in  1774,  and  by  Jefferson  afterwards  made  a  chief  corner-stone  of  the 
Declaration,  is  likewise  of  Scottish  rather  than  English  origin.  See  Appendix  F.  (Separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State.) 

6  The  executions  of  Protestants  which  took  place  in  "Bloody  Mary's"  reign  were,  in 
1555,  seventy-five  ;  in  1556,  eighty-three  ;  in  1557,  seventy-seven  ;  in  1558,  fifty-one  ;  a  total 
of  286. 


Early  American  Animosity  to  England  153 

7  The  religious  changes  had  thrown  an  almost  sacred  character  over  the  "  majesty"  of 
the  King.  Henry  was  the  Head  of  the  Church.  From  the  primate  to  the  meanest  deacon 
every  minister  of  it  derived  from  him  his  sole  right  to  exercise  spiritual  powers.  The  voice 
of  its  preachers  was  the  echo  of  his  will.  He  alone  could  define  orthodoxy  or  declare  heresy. 
The  forms  of  its  worship  and  beliefs  were  changed  and  rechanged  at  the  royal  caprice.  Half 
of  its  wealth  went  to  swell  the  royal  treasury,  and  the  other  half  lay  at  the  King's  mercy.  It 
was  this  unprecedented  concentration  of  all  power  in  the  hands  of  a  single  man  that  over- 
awed the  imagination  of  Henry's  subjects.  He  was  regarded  as  something  high  above  the 
laws  which  govern  common  men.  The  voices  of  statesmen  and  priests  extolled  his  wisdom 
and  authority  as  more  than  human.  The  Parliament  itself  rose  and  bowed  to  the  vacant 
throne  when  his  name  was  mentioned.  An  absolute  devotion  to  his  person  replaced  the  old 
loyalty  to  the  law.  When  the  Primate  of  the  English  Church  described  the  chief  merit  of 
Cromwell,  it  was  by  asserting  that  he  loved  the  King  "  no  less  than  he  loved  God." — John 
Richard  Green,  History  of  the  English  People,  book  vi.,  ch.  i. 

8  This  was  particularly  true  at  the  time  of  the  Revolutions  of  1638,  1688,  and  1775. 

9  See  Appendix  J  (Repression  of  Trade  in  Ireland). 

10  No  Presbyterian  could  henceforth  hold  any  office  in  the  army  or  navy,  in  the  customs, 
excise,  or  post  office,  nor  in  any  of  the  courts  of  law,  in  Dublin  or  the  provinces.  They  were 
forbidden  to  be  married  by  their  own  ministers  ;  they  were  prosecuted  in  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  for  immorality  because  they  had  so  married.  The  bishops  introduced  clauses  into  their 
leases  forbidding  the  erection  of  meeting-houses  on  any  part  of  their  estates  and  induced 
many  landlords  to  follow  their  example.  To  crown  all,  the  Schism  Act  was  passed  in  17 14, 
which  would  have  swept  the  Presbyterian  Church  out  of  existence,  but  Queen  Anne  died  be- 
fore it  came  into  operation,  but  not  before  the  furious  zeal  of  Swift  had  nailed  up  the  doors 
and  windows  of  the  Presbyterian  meeting-house  at  Summer  Hill,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Laracor.  Similar  scenes  occurred  at  three  other  places.  The  immediate  effect  of  these 
proceedings  was  to  estrange  the  Presbyterian  people  ;  and,  soon  after,  when  they  saw  that  all 
careers  were  closed  against  them,  wearied  out  with  long  exactions,  they  began  to  leave  the 
country  by  thousands.  The  destruction  of  the  woollen  trade  sent  20,000  of  them  away.  The 
rapacity  and  greed  of  landlords,  and  especially  the  Marquis  of  Donegal,  the  grandson  of  Sir 
Arthur  Chichester,  the  founder  of  the  Ulster  plantation,  caused  the  stream  of  emigration  to 
America  to  flow  on  for  nearly  forty  years  without  intermission. — Thomas  Croskery,  Irish 
Presbyierianism,  Dublin,  1S84,  pp.  13,  14. 

See  Appendix  K  (The  Test  Act). 

11  "  It  would  be  difficult  indeed  to  conceive  a  national  condition  less  favourable  than  that 
of  Ireland  [in  171 7]  to  a  man  of  energy  and  ambition.  .  .  .  If  he  were  a  Presbyterian  he  was 
subject  to  the  disabilities  of  the  Test  Act.  .  .  .  The  result  was  that  a  steady  tide  of  emi- 
gration set  in,  carrying  away  all  those  classes  who  were  most  essential  to  the  development  of 
the  nation.  The  manufacturers  and  the  large  class  of  energetic  labourers  who  lived  upon 
manufacturing  industry  were  scattered  far  and  wide.  Some  of  them  passed  to  England  and 
Scotland.  Great  numbers  found  a  home  in  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania,  and  they  were  the 
founders  of  the  linen  manufacture  in  New  England  {Burke's  Settlements  in  America,  ii.,  174, 
175,  216). 

4 '  The  Protestant  emigration  which  began  with  the  destruction  of  the  woollen  manufacture, 
continued  during  many  years  with  unabated  and  even  accelerating  rapidity.  At  the  time  of 
the  Revolution,  when  great  portions  of  the  country  lay  waste,  and  when  the  whole  framework 
of  society  was  shattered,  much  Irish  land  had  been  let  on  lease  at  very  low  rents  to  Eng- 
lish, and  especially  to  Scotch,  Protestants.  About  I7i7and  1718  these  leases  began  to  fall  in. 
Rents  were  usually  doubled,  and  often  trebled.  The  smaller  farms  were  generally  put  up  to 
competition,  and  the  Catholics,  who  were  accustomed  to  live  in  the  most  squalid  misery,  and 
to  forego  all  the  comforts  of  life,  very  naturally  outbid  the  Protestants.  This  fact,  added  to 
the  total  destruction  of  the  main  industries  on  which  the  Protestant  population  subsisted,  to 


154  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

the  disabilities  to  which  the  Protestant  nonconformists  were  subject  on  account  of  their 
religion,  and  to  the  growing  tendency  to  throw  land  into  pasture,  produced  a  great  social 
revolution,  the  effects  of  which  have  never  been  repaired." — Lecky,  Irelandin  the  Eighteenth 
Century,  vol.  i.,  pp.  245,  246. 

Mr.  Robert  Slade,  Secretary  to  the  Irish  Society  of  London  in  1802,  who  had  been  sent 
to  Londonderry  to  inspect  the  property  of  that  Society,  in  the  report  of  his  journey  writes  as 
follows :  "  The  road  from  Down  Hill  to  Coleraine  goes  through  the  best  part  of  the  Cloth- 
workers'  proportion,  and  was  held  by  the  Right  Hon.  Richard  Jackson  [he  was  nominated 
for  Parliament  by  the  town  of  Coleraine  in  1712],  who  was  the  Society's  general  agent.  It  is 
commonly  reported  in  the  country,  that,  having  been  obliged  to  raise  the  rents  of  his  tenants 
very  considerably,  in  consequence  of  the  large  fine  he  paid,  it  produced  an  almost  total  emi- 
gration of  them  to  America,  and  that  they  formed  a  principal  part  of  that  undisciplined  body 
which  brought  about  the  surrender  of  the  British  army  at  Saratoga."  This  undoubtedly 
refers  to  the  emigration  of  those  colonists  who,  in  1718-19,  founded  the  town  of  Londonderry, 
New  Hampshire,  from  which  place  were  recruited  Stark's  Rangers,  who  fought  the  battle  of 
Bennington,  and  also  many  of  those  who  took  part  in  the  battles  which  led  to  Burgoyne's 
surrender.  Five  ship-loads,  comprising  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  families,  sailed  from 
Ulster  in  the  summer  of  1718 ,  reaching  Boston  on  August  4th.  Here  they  were  not  long  per- 
mitted to  remain  by  the  Puritan  Government,  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  had  come  from 
Ireland,  but  were  granted  a  portion  of  the  township  in  which  they  afterwards  built  the  town 
of  Londonderry,  the  site  then  being  far  out  on  the  frontier.  These  emigrants  were  accom- 
panied by  four  ministers,  among  whom  was  the  Reverend  James  Macgregor.  He  had  been 
ordained  at  Aghadoey  in  1701,  and  served  as  their  first  minister  in  America.  Their  motives 
in  emigrating  may  be  gathered  from  a  manuscript  sermon  of  Mr.  Macgregor's,  addressed  to 
them  on  the  eve  of  their  embarkation.  These  reasons  he  states  as  follows  :  "  1.  To  avoid 
oppression  and  cruel  bondage.  2.  To  shun  persecution  and  designed  ruin.  3.  To  withdraw 
from  the  communion  of  idolators.  4.  To  have  an  opportunity  of  worshipping  God  according 
to  the  dictates  of  conscience  and  the  rules  of  His  inspired  Word." 

See  also  Appendix  L  (Tithes  in  Ulster). 

12  Mr.  Adolphus,  in  his  book  on  the  Reign  of  George  III.,  uses  the  following  language  : 
' '  The  first  effort  toward  a  union  of  interest  was  made  by  the  Presbyterians,  who  were  eager 
in  carrying  into  execution  their  favorite  project  of  forming  a  synod.  Their  churches  had 
hitherto  remained  unconnected  with  each  other,  and  their  union  in  synod  had  been  considered 
so  dangerous  to  the  community  that  in  1725  it  was  prevented  by  the  express  interference  of 
the  lords-justices.  Availing  themselves,  with  great  address,  of  the  rising  discontents,  the 
convention  of  ministers  and  elders  at  Philadelphia  enclosed  in  a  circular-letter  to  all  the 
Presbyterian  congregations  in  Pennsylvania  the  proposed  articles  of  union.  ...  In  con- 
sequence of  this  letter,  a  union  of  all  the  congregations  took  place  in  Pennsylvania  and  the 
Lower  Counties.  A  similar  confederacy  was  established  in  all  the  Southern  provinces,  in 
pursuance  of  similar  letters  written  by  their  respective  conventions.  These  measures  ended 
in  the  establishment  of  an  annual  synod  at  Philadelphia,  where  all  general  affairs,  political  as 
well  as  religious,  were  debated  and  decided.  From  this  synod  orders  and  decrees  were  issued 
throughout  America,  and  to  them  a  ready  and  implicit  obedience  was  paid. 

"  The  discontented  in  New  England  recommended  a  union  of  the  Congregational  and 
Presbyterian  interests  throughout  the  colonies.  A  negotiation  took  place,  which  ended  in 
the  appointment  of  a  permanent  committee  of  correspondence,  and  powers  to  communicate 
and  consult  on  all  occasions  with  a  similar  committee  established  by  the  Congregational 
churches  in  New  England.     .     . 

4 '  By  this  union  a  party  was  prepared  to  display  their  power  by  resistance,  and  the  Stamp 
law  presented  itself  as  a  favorable  object  of  hostility." 

Equally  explicit  testimony  is  borne  in  a  published  address  of  Mr.  William  B.  Reed  of 
Philadelphia,  himself  an  Episcopalian  :  "  The  part  taken  by  the  Presbyterians  in  the  contest 


Early  American  Animosity  to  England  155 

with  the  mother-country  was  indeed,  at  the  time,  often  made  a  ground  of  reproach,  and  the 
connection  between  their  efforts  for  the  security  of  their  religious  liberty  and  opposition  to 
the  oppressive  measures  of  Parliament,  was  then  distinctly  seen."  Mr.  Galloway,  a  prominent 
advocate  of  the  government,  in  1774,  ascribed  the  revolt  and  revolution  mainly  to  the  action 
of  the  Presbyterian  clergy  and  laity  as  early  as  1764.  Another  writer  of  the  same  period  says  : 
' '  You  will  have  discovered  that  I  am  no  friend  to  the  Presbyterians,  and  that  I  fix  all  the 
blame  of  these  extraordinary  proceedings  upon  them." — J.  G.  Craighead,  Scotch  and  Irish 
Seeds  in  American  Soil,  pp.  322-324. 

13  The  two  nations  in  the  long  course  of  their  history  had  met  each  other  in  three  hun- 
dred and  fourteen  pitched  battles,  and  had  sacrificed  more  than  a  million  of  men  as  brave  as 
ever  wielded  claymore,  sword,  or  battle-axe. — Halsey,  Scotland's  Influence  on  Civilization, 
p.  14. 

14  "  Call  this  war,  my  dearest  friend,  by  whatsoever  name  you  may,  only  call  it  not  an 
American  Rebellion,  it  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  Irish-Scotch  Presbyterian  Rebellion." 
— Extract  from  a  letter  of  Captain  Johann  Heinrichs  of  the  Hessian  Jager  Corps,  written 
from  Philadelphia,  January  18,  1778  ;  see  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography, 
vol.  xxii.,  p.  137. 

General  Wayne  had  a  constitutional  attachment  to  the  decision  of  the  sword,  and  this 
cast  of  character  had  acquired  strength  from  indulgence,  as  well  as  from  the  native  temper  of  the 
troops  he  commanded.  They  were  known  by  the  designation  of  the  Line  of  Pennsylvania  ; 
whereas  they  might  have  been  with  more  propriety  called  the  Line  of  Ireland.  Bold  and 
daring,  they  were  impatient  and  refractory  ;  and  would  always  prefer  an  appeal  to  the  bayonet 
to  a  toilsome  march.  Restless  under  the  want  of  food  and  whiskey,  adverse  to  absence  from 
their  baggage,  and  attached  to  the  pleasures  of  the  table,  Wayne  and  his  brigade  were  more 
encumbered  with  wagons  than  any  equal  portion  of  the  army.  The  General  and  his  soldiers 
were  singularly  fitted  for  close  and  stubborn  action,  hand  to  hand,  in  the  centre  of  the  army  ; 
but  very  little  adapted  to  the  prompt  and  toilsome  service  to  which  Lafayette  was  and  must 
be  exposed,  so  long  as  the  British  general  continued  to  press  him.  Cornwallis  therefore  did  not 
miscalculate  when  he  presumed  that  the  junction  of  Wayne  would  increase  rather  than 
diminish  his  chance  of  bringing  his  antagonist  [Lafayette]  to  action. — Gen.  Henry  Lee, 
Memoirs  of  the  War  in  the  Southern  Department,  ch.  xxxi.,  p.  203,  vol.  ii.,  first  edition  ;  p. 
292,  second  edition. 

Dr.  Charles  Janeway  Stille,  in  his  work  on  Major-General  Anthony  Wayne  and  the 
Pennsylvania  Line  in  the  Continental  Army,  in  commenting  on  this  passage  speaks  as  follows  : 
"A  curious  error  has  been  fallen  into  by  many  historians,  including  Mr.  Bancroft,  in  speaking 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Line,  that  '  it  was  composed  in  a  large  degree  of  new-comers  from  Ireland.' 
.  .  .  These  writers  are  evidently  thinking  of  the  characteristic  qualities  of  the  Celtic  Irish- 
man in  war  ;  but  there  were  not,  it  is  said  on  good  authority  [*'.  e.,  Dr.  William  H.  Egle  and 
John  Blair  Linn,  editors  of  the  Pennsylvania  Archives'],  more  than  three  hundred  persons  of 
Irish  birth  (Roman  Catholic  and  Celtic)  in  the  Pennsylvania  Line.  Two-thirds  of  the  force 
were  Scotch-Irish,  a  race  with  whose  fighting  qualities  we  are  all  familiar,  but  which  are  quite 
opposite  to  those  which  characterize  the  true  Irish  Celt.  Most  of  them  were  descendants  of  the 
Scotch-Irish  emigrants  of  1717-1730,  and  very  few  of  them  were  '  new-comers.'  "  In  making 
the  statement  last  quoted,  Dr.  Stille  evidently  overlooked  the  large  emigration  of  Scotch-Irish 
from  Belfast  to  Pennsylvania  which  took  place  in  1772-73.  These  emigrants  left  Ulster 
with  a  bitter  animosity  to  England,  brought  on  in  a  large  measure  by  the  same  causes  which 
afterwards  led  to  the  Protestant  Irish  Rebellion  of  1798. 

15  See  Appendix  M  (The  Scotch-Irish  and  the  Revolution). 


THE  SCOT  IN   NORTH    BRITAIN 


157 


CHAPTER    XII 
WHO  ARE  THE   SCOTCH-IRISH  ? 

THE  North  of  Ireland  is  divided  into  the  counties  of  Antrim,  Down,  Ar- 
magh, Londonderry  (formerly  Coleraine),  Tyrone,  Monaghan,  Donegal, 
Fermanagh,  and  Cavan.  These  nine  counties  comprise  the  ancient  province 
of  Ulster,  which  includes  a  fourth  part  of  the  island,  and  contains  8567 
square  miles  of  territory,  an  area  equal  to  nearly  one-fifth  that  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, or  of  about  the  same  extent  as  the  portion  of  that  State  lying  south 
and  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge  Mountains. 

At  the  present  time,  one-third  of  the  land  in  Ulster  is  under  cultivation  ; 
somewhat  more  than  a  third  is  in  pasturage  ;  and  a  little  less  than  one-fourth 
is  classed  as  waste  land — mountains  and  bogs  :  in  all  5,321,580  acres.  Such 
of  this  land  as  was  not  laid  off  into  towns  and  roads  was  held,  in  1881,  by 
22,000  owners — 3,766,816  acres,  or  72  per  cent.,  belonging  to  477  individuals, 
of  whom  95  owned  2,088,170  acres,  or  40  per  cent,  of  the  whole. 

In  1891,  the  population  of  the  province  was  1,619,814,  of  whom  45.98  per 
cent,  are  classified  in  the  Census  Report  of  Great  Britain  as  Roman  Catho- 
lics ;  22.39  Per  cent,  as  Episcopalians  ;  and  26.32  per  cent,  as  Presbyterians. 
These  proportions  bear  a  close  affinity  to  those  of  the  various  racial  elements 
of  which  the  population  is  composed.  In  this  respect,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  represents  approximately  the  ancient  Irish  element;  the  Episcopalian 
Church,  the  English  or  Anglo-Irish  ;  and  the  Presbyterian,  the  Scotch  or 
Scotch-Irish.  In  those  districts  where  one  element  predominates  over  an- 
other, we  find  a  majority  of  the  people  identified,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent, 
with  the  corresponding  religious  sect.  This  has  been  the  case  for  nearly 
three  hundred  years,  or  ever  since  the  foreign  elements  were  first  introduced, 
and  is  so  generally  recognized  that  it  is  perhaps  not  too  much  to  say  that  in 
no  other  mixed  population  in  the  world  has  church  affiliation  been  so  char- 
acteristic of  race  and  nationality  as  in  the  North  of  Ireland  since  the  be- 
ginning of  the  seventeenth  century.1  This  circumstance  being  kept  in 
mind,  does  much  to  simplify  the  work  of  tracing  the  various  elements  of  the 
population  to  their  original  sources. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland  now  numbers  over  550  congrega- 
tions, and  there  are,  besides,  several  United  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Pres- 
byterian congregations.  The  Presbyterians  number  nearly  half  a  million — 
about  one-tenth  of  the  population  of  the  country.  The  Episcopalian  Church 
claims  over  600,000  adherents.  The  Presbyterian  Church  doubtless  includes 
more  than  four-fifths  of  the  Scots  of  Ulster.  The  manner  in  which  the  mem- 
bership of  that  church  is  distributed  affords  ample  proof  of  this.  Ulster 
claims   fifteen-sixteenths   of   them,  and   they  are  found  in  those  identical 

159 


160  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

localities  where  we  know  that  the  Scots  settled.  In  Antrim  they  constitute 
38  per  cent,  of  a  total  population  of  428,000  ;  in  Down,  38  per  cent,  of  a 
total  population  of  267,000  ;  while  in  Londonderry  they  form  30  per  cent., 
in  Tyrone,  19,  and  in  Armagh  15  per  cent,  of  the  population.  But  it  is  when 
we  come  to  examine  the  details  of  the  census  of  1881  that  the  clearest  traces 
of  the  Scottish  emigration  are  to  be  found.  Down  has  only  38  per  cent,  of 
Presbyterians,  but  that  is  because  the  south  of  the  county  was  never  colon- 
ized, and  is  still  Roman  Catholic.  The  old  Scottish  colony  in  Upper  Clan- 
naboye  and  the  Great  Ards  is  still  nearly  as  Presbyterian  as  in  1630.  James 
Hamilton,  immediately  after  settling  there  in  1606,  raised  churches  and 
placed  "  learned  and  pious  ministers  from  Scotland  "  in  the  six  parishes  of 
his,  estate  —  Bangor,  Killinchy,  Holywood,  Ballyhalbert,  Dundonald,  and 
Killyleagh.  These  parishes  have  gone  on  flourishing,  so  that  when  the  census 
collector  did  his  rounds  through  Hamilton's  old  estate  in  1881,  he  found 
that  it  contained  29,678  inhabitants  ;  and  that  although  it  was  situated  in 
what  has  been  called  the  most  Catholic  country  in  Europe,  only  3444  Roman 
Catholics  were  there  to  be  found,  as  against  17,205  Presbyterians.  For 
nearly  three  centuries  these  "  Westlan'  Whigs  "  have  stood  true  to  their  Scot- 
tish Church.  The  record  of  Hugh  Montgomery's  settlement  is  quite  as 
curious.  His  old  headquarters,  Newtown-Ards,  has  grown  into  a  flourish- 
ing little  manufacturing  town  ;  and  Donaghadee  is  a  big  village  well  known 
as  a  ferry-port  for  Scotland.  Still  they  remain  "  true  blue  "  Presbyterian. 
Montgomery's  estate  is  pretty  well  covered  by  the  four  parishes  of  Newtown- 
Ards,  Grey  Abbey,  Comber,  and  Donaghadee.  These  have  a  united  population 
of  26,559  ;  the  Presbyterians  number  16,714,  and  the  Roman  Catholics  only 
1370  —  the  balance  being  mainly  Episcopalians  and  Methodists.  In  Armagh 
and  in  Fermanagh,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Episcopalians  are  more  numerous 
than  the  Presbyterians.  In  the  former  there  are  32  per  cent,  belonging  to 
the  Church  of  Ireland,  and  only  15  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  while  in 
the  latter  there  are  only  2  per  cent,  of  Presbyterians,  as  against  36  of  Epis- 
copalians. The  balance  of  nationalities  and  of  religions  remains  to  all 
appearance  what  the  colonization  of  the  seventeenth  century  made  it,  and 
that  notwithstanding  the  great  emigration  from  Ulster  during  the  eighteenth 
century.  The  only  strange  change  is,  that  Belfast,  which  was  at  its  founda- 
tion an  English  town,  should  so  soon  have  become  in  the  main  Scottish,  and 
should  remain  such  unto  this  day. 

There  is  another  point  that  may  be  mentioned  in  this  connection  —  one, 
indeed,  on  which  the  foregoing  conditions  may  be  said  quite  largely  to 
depend.  That  is,  the  fact  that  intermarriages  between  the  natives  and  the 
Scotch  settlers  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  their  descendants  in  Ulster, 
have  been  so  rare  and  uncommon  as  to  be  practically  anomalous,  and  in 
consequence  can  hardly  be  said  to  enter  into  the  general  question  of  race 
origin  ;  or  at  most,  only  in  an  incidental  way.2 

It  is  true,  this  cannot  be  said  of  the  English  colonists  of  Elizabeth's  time, 


Who  Are  the  Scotch-Irish  ?  161 

nor  of  Cromwell's  soldiers,  who  settled  in  the  southern  provinces  of  Ireland 
after  1650.  Concerning  these  two  latter  classes  of  settlers,  as  the  most 
recent  authoritative  writer8  on  Ireland  has  said:  "  No  feature  of  Irish 
history  is  more  conspicuous  than  the  rapidity  with  which  intermarriages  had 
altered  the  character  of  successive  generations  of  English  colonists.  .  .  . 
The  conquest  of  Ireland  by  the  Puritan  soldiers  of  Cromwell  was  hardly 
more  signal  than  the  conquest  of  these  soldiers  by  the  invincible  Catholicism 
of  the  Irish  women."  But  in  the  case  of  the  Scotch  colonists  planted  by 
James  in  Ulster,  and  of  those  who  followed  them,  we  find  none  of  the  results 
attributed  by  Lecky  to  the  intermarriages  of  the  English  soldiers  with  the 
Irish.  And  while  it  is  true  that  the  influence  of  religion  in  keeping  up 
the  lines  of  race  distinction  has  been  at  times  overestimated,  yet  in  the  case 
of  the  Ulster  Scots,  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  propinquity  and  the  asso- 
ciations of  daily  life  made  it  "  absolutely  certain  that  attachments  would  be 
formed,  that  connections  would  spring  up,  that  passion,  caprice,  and  daily 
association  would  .  .  .  prove  too  strong  for  religious  or  social  repug- 
nance "  to  an  extent  sufficient  to  change  or  perceptibly  influence  the  char- 
acter of  their  descendants.  These  Scottish  people  in  Ireland  to-day  exhibit 
all  the  distinctive  racial  characteristics  of  their  Scottish  forefathers  ;  and 
have  none  of  the  peculiar  qualities  attributed  by  the  two  leading  writers  on 
the  subject  to  the  offspring  of  mixed  marriages  between  Irish  Protestants 
and  Roman  Catholics.  Thus  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  inasmuch  as  the 
Ulster  Scots  have  not  been  overcome  by  the  invincible  Roman  Catholi- 
cism of  the  Irish  women,  and  since  they  remain  Presbyterians,  as  their  early- 
Scotch  ancestors  were  before  them,  they  are  likewise  of  unmixed  Scottish 
blood. 

Concerning  the  correctness  of  this  conclusion,  we  have  the  recent  testi- 
mony of  two  distinguished  Americans,  one  of  them  a  native  and  the  other 
for  many  years  a  resident  of  Ulster.  And,  considering  the  well-known 
prominence  of  these  two  gentlemen  as  clergymen,  it  cannot  be  supposed 
that  their  denominational  proclivities  would  lead  them  to  give  any  other 
than  an  accurate  statement  of  facts  so  readily  capable  of  verification.  One 
of  these  witnesses,  the  late  Dr.  John  Hall  of  New  York,  said  :  "  I  have 
sometimes  noticed  a  little  confusion  of  mind  in  relation  to  the  phrase, 
*  Scotch-Irish,'  as  if  it  meant  that  Scotch  people  had  come  over  and  in- 
termarried with  the  native  Irish,  and  that  thus  a  combination  of  two  races, 
two  places,  two  nationalities  had  taken  place.  That  is  by  no  means  the 
state  of  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  with  kindly  good  feeling  in  various 
directions,  the  Scotch  people  kept  to  the  Scotch  people,  and  they  are  called 
Scotch-Irish  from  purely  local,  geographical  reasons,  and  not  from  any 
union  of  the  kind  that  I  have  alluded  to.  I  have  n't  the  least  doubt  that 
their  being  in  Ireland  and  in  close  contact  with  the  native  people  of  that 
land,  and  their  circumstances  there,  had  some  influence  in  the  developing  of 
the  character,  in  the  broadening  of  the  sympathies,  in  the  extending  of  the 


1 62  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

range  of  thought  and  action  of  the  Scotch-Irish  people  ;  but  they  are  Scotch 
through  and  through,  they  are  Scottish  out  and  out,  and  they  are  Irish  be- 
cause, in  the  providence  of  God,  they  were  sent  for  some  generations  to  the 
land  that  I  am  permitted  to  speak  of  as  the  land  of  my  birth." 

The  second  authority  is  the  Rev.  John  S.  Macintosh  of  Philadelphia,  who, 
by  reason  of  his  many  years  of  close  observation  spent  amongst  the  people 
of  Ulster,  and  his  extended  research  into  their  earlier  history,  is  perhaps 
better  qualified  to  speak  conclusively  on  the  subject  than  any  other  living 
person.  His  testimony  is  that :  "  Our  American  term  —  the  Scotch-Irish  — 
is  not  known  even  in  Ulster,  save  among  the  very  few  who  have  learned  the 
ways  of  our  common  speech.  The  term  known  in  Britain  is  the  Ulsterman  ; 
and  in  Ireland,  it  is  the  '  sturdy  Northern,'  or  at  times  the  '  black  Northern.' 
What  changed  the  Lowlander,  and  what  gave  us  the  Ulsterman  ?  In  this 
study  I  have  drawn  very  largely  upon  the  labors  of  two  friends  of  former 
years  —  Dr.  William  D.  Killen  of  the  Assembly's  College,  one  of  the  most 
learned  and  accurate  of  historians,  and  the  Rev.  George  Hill,  once  Librarian 
of  Queen's  College,  Belfast,  Ireland,  than  whom  never  was  there  more 
ardent  student  of  old  annals  and  reliable  of  antiquarians.  But  more  largely 
still  have  I  drawn  on  my  own  personal  watch  and  study  of  this  Ulster  folk 
in  their  homes,  their  markets,  and  their  churches.  From  Derry  to  Down  I 
have  lived  with  them.  Every  town,  village,  and  hamlet  from  the  Causeway 
to  Carlingford  is  familiar  to  me.  Knowing  the  Lowlander  and  the  Scotch- 
Irish  of  this  land,  I  have  studied  the  Ulsterman  and  his  story  of  rights  and 
wrongs,  and  that  eagerly,  for  years.  I  speak  that  which  I  have  seen,  and 
testify  what  I  have  heard  from  their  lips,  read  from  old  family  books,  church 
records,  and  many  a  tombstone  in  kirk-yards.     .     .     . 

"  This  fact,  that  the  Ulster  colonist  was  a  stranger,  and  the  favorite,  for 
the  time,  of  England  and  her  government,  wrought  in  a  twofold  way  ;  in 
the  Ulsterman  and  against  him.     .     .     . 

"  Again,  the  fact  that  he  was  the  royal  colonist  wrought  in  him  the  pride, 
the  contempt,  the  hauteur  and  swaggering  daring  of  a  victorious  race  planted 
among  despised  savages.  What  at  a  later  day  was  seen  here  may  be  seen 
down  all  the  stretch  of  Ulster  history.  I  have  myself  seen  it,  and  heard 
time  and  again  he  would  '  lord  it  ower  the  mere  Eerish.'  And  the  rulers  of 
that  hour  both  cultivated  that  feeling  and  enforced  it.  The  Celt  of  that  day 
had  nothing  to  make  him  winsome  or  worthy  of  imitation.  Romance  and 
sentiment  may  as  well  be  dropped.  We  have  the  hard  facts  about  the  clans- 
men of  the  O'Neill.  The  glory  and  the  honor  were  with  England.  The 
times  were  big  with  the  fresh  British  life.  The  men  and  women  of  that  age 
and  the  age  just  closed  are  mighty  by  their  witching  force  of  greatness  in 
good  and  evil.  It  is  the  era  of  Britain's  bursting  life  and  greatening  soul. 
Song  and  statesmanship,  the  chiefs  of  the  drama,  and  the  captains  of  daring 
are  telling  mightily  on  our  forefathers  in  England  and  in  Ulster.  The  new 
'  Plantation '  itself  is  full  of  enchantment  when  contrasted  with  the  old  state 


Who  Are  the  Scotch-Irish  ?  163 

of  internecine  war.  .  .  .  But  those  proud  and  haughty  strangers,  with  high 
heads  and  their  new  ways,  were  hated  as  aliens  and  harried  from  the  begin- 
ning by  '  the  wild  Irish.' 

"  The  scorn  of  the  Scot  was  met  by  the  curse  of  the  Celt.  The  native 
chiefs  and  their  clansmen  did  not  distinguish  between  the  government  and 
the  colonists  ;  nor  had  they  the  right ;  nor  did  the  colonists  give  them  any 
cause.  The  hate  and  the  harrying  of  the  Irish  were  returned,  and  with  com- 
pound interest,  by  the  proud  Ulsterman.  I  neither  approve  nor  apologize  : 
I  simply  state  what  I  find.  To  him  the  *  redshanks  '  of  the  '  wild  Earl '  of 
Tyrone  were  exactly  as  the  redskins  of  our  forests  to  the  men  of  New  Eng- 
land and  the  Susquehanna  and  the  Ohio.  The  natives  were  always  *  thae 
Eerish  ! '  and  the  scorn  is  as  sharp  to-day  on  the  tongue  of  a  Belfast  Orange- 
man as  two  centuries  ago.  It  has  been  said  that  the  Ulster  settlers  mingled 
and  married  with  the  Irish  Celt.  The  Ulsterman  did  not  mingle  with  the 
Celt.  I  speak,  remember,  chiefly  of  the  period  running  from  1605  to  1741. 
There  had  been  in  Ireland  before  the  '  Plantation  '  some  wild  Islanders  from 
the  west  of  Scotland,  whose  descendants  I  have  found  in  the  Antrim 
*  Glynnes ' ;  they  did  marry  and  intermarry  with  the  natives  ;  but  King 
James  expressly  forbade  anymore  of  these  island-men  being  taken  to  Ulster; 
and  he  and  his  government  took  measures  that  the  later  settlers  of  the  *  Plan- 
tation '  should  be  taken  '  from  the  inward  parts  of  Scotland,'  and  that  they 
should  be  so  settled  that  they  '  may  not  mix  nor  intermarry '  with  *  the 
mere  Irish.'  The  Ulster  settlers  mingled  freely  with  the  English  Puritans 
and  with  the  refugee  Huguenots  ;  but  so  far  as  my  search  of  state  papers, 
old  manuscripts,  examination  of  old  parish  registers,  and  years  of  personal 
talk  with  and  study  of  Ulster  folk  disclose — the  Scots  did  not  mingle  to  any 
appreciable  extent  with  the  natives.  I  have  talked  with  three  very  old  friends, 
an  educated  lady,  a  shrewd  farmer's  wife,  and  a  distinguished  physician  ;  they 
could  each  clearly  recall  their  great-grandfathers  ;  these  great-grandparerits 
told  them  their  fathers'  tales  ;  and  I  have  kept  them  carefully  as  valuable 
personal  memoirs.  These  stories  agree  exactly  with  all  we  can  get  in  docu- 
ments. With  all  its  dark  sides,  as  well  as  all  light  sides,  the  fact  remains 
that  Ulsterman  and  Celt  were  aliens  and  foes. 

"  Hence  came  constant  and  bitter  strife.  ...  In  both  Lowlander 
and  Ulsterman  is  the  same  strong  racial  pride,  the  same  hauteur  and  self- 
assertion,  the  same  self-reliance,  the  same  close  mouth,  and  the  same  firm 
Will — '  the  stiff  heart  for  the  steek  brae.'  They  are  both  of  the  very  Scotch, 
Scotch.  To  this  very  hour,  in  the  remoter  and  more  unchanged  parts  of 
Antrim  and  Down,  the  country-folks  will  tell  you  :  '  We  're  no  Eerish  bot 
Scoatch.'  All  their  folk-lore,  all  their  tales,  their  traditions,  their  songs,  their 
poetry,  their  heroes  and  heroines,  and  their  home-speech,  is  of  the  oldest 
Lowland  types  and  times." 

Again,  we  have  some  supplementary  evidence  to  the  same  effect  from  a 
recent  Scottish  author,  John  Harrison,  who,  in  his  account  of  the  native 


164  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Irish-Scots,  gives  a  brief  and  characteristic  description  of  an  Ulster  grave- 
yard.    This  author  says  : 

Two  miles  south  from  Donaghadee,  on  the  shore  road  into  the  Upper 
Ards,  that  narrow  peninsula  between  Strangford  Lough  and  the  Irish  Sea, 
there  lies  a  little  enclosure  which  must  arrest  the  stranger's  attention.  It  is 
a  graveyard,  and  is  called  Temple-patrick.  It  is  surrounded  by  low  stone 
walls  ;  no  church  or  temple  is  now  within  its  confines  ;  no  trees  or  flowers 
give  grateful  shade,  or  lend  colour  and  tender  interest  ;  it  is  thickly  covered 
with  green  mounds,  and  with  monumental  slabs  of  gray  slaty  stone, — the 
graves  are  packed  close  together.  Read  the  simple  '  headstones,"  and  you 
discover  no  trace  of  sentiment  ;  few  fond  and  loving  words  ;  no  request  for 
the  prayers,  of  the  passer-by  for  the  souls  of  those  who  sleep  below  ;  nothing 
more  akin  to  sentiment  than  "  Sacred  to  the  memory  of."  Above,  great 
masses  of  gray  clouds,  as  they  go  scudding  past,  throw  down  on  the  traveller, 
as  he  rests  and  thinks,  big  drops  of  rain  ;  and  before  him  is  spread  out, 
north,  south,  and  east,  the  sullen  sea,  whose  moan  fills  all  his  sense  of  hear- 
ing. It  is  not  the  spot  which  a  man  would  love  to  picture  to  himself  as  his 
last  resting-place.  Read  the  names  on  the  stones,  and  you  discover  why 
here  in  Ireland  there  is  to  be  found  nothing  of  tender  grace  to  mark  the 
higher  side,  nothing  of  tinsel  to  show  the  lower,  of  Irish  character.  The 
names  are  very  Scottish — such  as  Andrew  Byers,  John  Shaw,  Thomas 
MacMillan,  Robert  Angus  ;  it  is  a  burying-place  of  the  simple  peasants  of 
County  Down,  who  are  still,  in  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century,  as  Scot- 
tish as  they  were  when  they  landed  here  nearly  three  centuries  ago.     .     .     . 

It  is  difficult  to  bring  home  to  men  who  do  not  know  Ireland  and  its  his- 
tory, the  fact  that  there  is  a  deep,  strongly  marked  difference  between  the 
Ulstermen  and  the  Irish,  and  that  that  difference  is  not  accidental,  not  the 
divergence  arising  out  of  different  surroundings,  not  even  that  springing 
from  antagonistic  religious  training,  but  is  the  deeper,  stronger-marked 
cleavage  of  differing  race.  It  is  as  distinct  as  that  between  any  two  varie- 
ties of  any  other  animal — say  between  mastiff  and  stag-hound.  Of  course, 
intermarriage  gradually  shades  off  the  difference  of  type  ;  but  take  the  Scots 
of  the  Ards  of  Down,  who  have  probably  scarcely  intermarried  with  the 
Irish  during  the  three  hundred  years  they  have  been  in  the  island,  and  con- 
trast them  with  the  inhabitants  of  West  Donegal,  who  have  probably  scarcely 
mixed  their  blood  with  the  English,  and  you  see  the  race  difference.  It  is 
strange  for  any  man  who  is  accustomed  to  walk  through  the  southern  dis- 
tricts of  Scotland,  and  to  meet  the  country  people  going  about  their  daily 
work  in  their  everyday  clothes  and  everyday  manner,  to  cross  into  Ireland 
and  wander  through  the  country  roads  of  Down  or  Antrim.  He  is  in  a 
country  which  is  supposed  to  be  passionately  anxious  to  set  up  a  separate 
nationality,  and  yet  he  cannot  feel  as  if  he  were  away  from  his  own  kith  and 
kin.  The  men  who  are  driving  the  carts  are  like  the  men  at  home  ;  the 
women  at  the  cottage  doors  are  in  build  and  carriage  like  the  mothers  of 
the  southern  Highlands  ;  the  signs  of  the  little  shops  in  the  village  bear 
well-known  names — Paterson,  perhaps,  or  Johnstone,  or  Slo.an  ;  the  boy 
sitting  on  the  "  dyke  "  with  nothing  to  do  is  whistling  A  man  's  a  man  for 
a'  that."  He  goes  into  a  village  inn,  and  is  served  by  a  six-foot,  loosely- 
hung  Scottish  Borderer,  worthy  to  have  served  "  drams  "  to  "  the  Shepherd 
and  Christopher  North  "  ;  and  when  he  leaves  the  little  inn  he  sees  by  the 
sign  that  his  host  bears  the  name  of  "James  Hay,"  and  his  wonder  ceases. 


Who  Are  the  Scotch-Irish  ?  165 

The  want  of  strangeness  in  the  men  and  women  is  what  strikes  him  as 
so  strange.  Then  he  crosses  the  Bann,  and  gets  into  a  different  region. 
He  leaves  behind  him  the  pleasant  green  hills  which  shut  in  Belfast  Lough, 
the  great  sweep  of  rich  plain  which  Lough  Neagh  may  well  ask  to  show 
cause  why  it  should  not  be  annexed  to  its  inland  sea  ;  he  gets  within  sight 
of  the  South  Derry  hills,  and  the  actors  in  the  scene  partly  change.  Some 
are  very  familiar  ;  the  smart  maid  at  his  inn  is  very  like  the  housemaid  at 
home,  and  the  principal  grocer  of  the  little  village  is  the  "  very  image  "  of 
the  elder  who  taught  him  at  the  Sunday  School  ;  but  he  meets  a  donkey- 
cart,  and  neither  the  donkey  nor  its  driver  seem  somehow  or  other  to  be  kin 
to  him  ;  and  the  "Father"  passes  him,  and  looks  at  him  as  at  a  stranger 
who  is  visiting  his  town, — then  the  Scotsman  knows  that  he  is  out  of  Scot- 
land and  into  Ireland.  It  is  not  in  Belfast  that  he  feels  the  likeness  to  home 
so  much,  for  everybody  is  walking  fast  just  as  they  are  in  Glasgow,  so  he 
cannot  notice  them  particularly,  and,  of  course,  the  "  loafers  "  at  the  public- 
house  doors,  who  are  certainly  not  moving  smartly,  do  not  count  for  any- 
thing in  either  town  ;  but  it  is  in  the  country  districts — at  Newtown  Ards,  or 
Antrim,  where  life  is  leisurely,  that  he  recognizes  that  he  is  among  his  own 
people  ;  while  it  is  in  a  town  which  is  in  the  border-land  between  Scot- 
tish and  Irish,  say  at  Coleraine,  on  a  Saturday  market-day,  that  he  has  the 
difference  of  the  two  types  in  face  and  figure  brought  strongly  before  him. 
Some  seem  foreign  to  him,  others  remind  him  of  his  "  ain  countrie,"  and 
make  him  feel  that  the  district  he  is  in,  is  in  reality  the  land  of  the  Scot. 

A  contributor  to  the  Edinburgh  Review  for  April,  1869,  in  writing  on  this 
subject,  says : 

Another  effect  of  the  Plantation  [of  Ulster]  was  that  it  effectually 
separated  the  two  races,  and  kept  them  apart.  It  planted  a  new  race  in 
the  country,  which  never  coalesced  with  the  native  population.  There  they 
have  been  in  continual  contact  for  more  than  two  centuries  ;  and  they  are 
still  as  distinct  as  though  an  ocean  rolled  between  them.  We  have  seen 
that  all  former  schemes  of  plantation  failed,  because  the  new  settlers  became 
rapidly  assimilated  to  the  character,  manners,  and  faith  of  the  native  inhab- 
itants ;  even  the  descendants  of  Oliver's  Puritan  troopers  being  as  effectually 
absorbed  in  the  space  of  forty  years  as  to  be  undistinguishable  from  the 
Celtic  mass.  The  Ulster  settlement  put  an  end  to  the  amalgamation  of 
races  ;  difference  of  creed,  difference  of  habits,  difference  of  tradition,  the 
sundering  effects  of  the  penal  laws,  kept  them  apart.  The  Presbyterian 
settlers  preserved  their  religious  distinctness  by  coming  in  families,  and  the 
intense  hatred  of  Popery  that  has  always  marked  the  Scottish  mind  was 
an  effective  hindrance  to  intermarriage.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  that  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  Ulster  Presbyterians  still  look  back  to  Scotland  as  their  home, 
and  disclaim  all  alliance  with  the  Celtic  part  of  Ireland.  Indeed,  the  past 
history  of  Ulster  is  but  a  portion  of  Scottish  history  inserted  into  that  of 
Ireland  ;  a  stone  in  the  Irish  mosaic  of  an  entirely  different  quality  and 
color  from  the  pieces  that  surround  it. 

Hence  it  is  that  in  Ulster  of  the  present  day  there  is  little  difficulty  in 
distinguishing  the  citizen  of  Scottish  blood  from  the  Episcopalian  of  English 
and  the  Roman  Catholic  of  Irish  descent.  In  the  towns  and  districts  where 
the  Presbyterians  are  most  numerous  we  find  that,  so  far  as  names,  language, 


1 66  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

habits  of  thought  and  action,  and  the  testimony  of  recorded  history  can  be 
taken,  the  population  bears  the  most  characteristic  marks  of  a  Scottish 
origin.4  In  the  country  districts,  the  peasant  still  retains  the  Scotch  "  bur  " 
in  his  speech  * ;  devoutly  believes  in  the  doctrines  of  John  Calvin  and  John 
Knox  ;  is  firmly  committed  against  everything  allied  with  Popery  or  Prelacy  ; 
and  usually  emphatic  in  his  claims  to  a  Scottish  and  his  disavowal  of  an 
Irish  descent.6 

Not  that  all  the  Irish  Scots  are  Presbyterians,  however,  nor  all  the  Pres- 
byterians Scotch.  From  the  days  of  Echlin  and  Leslie  down,  some  of  the 
most  bitter  opponents  and  persecutors  of  Ulster  Presbyterianism  and  its 
adherents  have  been  Scotchmen  ;  while  some  of  its  most  useful  and  influen- 
tial supporters  have  come  from  the  ranks  of  the  English  Puritans  and  the 
French  Huguenots.7  Nevertheless,  the  great  bulk  of  the  Presbyterian 
settlers  in  Ulster  were  from  Scotland,  and  of  this  class  was  composed  nearly 
the  whole  emigration  from  that  country.  In  inquiring  into  the  origin  of 
these  people,  therefore,  we  must  seek  for  it  on  the  other  side  of  the  Irish 
Channel. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XII. 

1  The  rector  of  the  parish  of  Dungiven,  in  county  Derry,  writing  in  1814,  says  :  "  The 
inhabitants  of  the  parish  are  divided  into  two  races  of  men,  as  totally  distinct  as  if  they 
belonged  to  different  countries  and  regions.  These,  in  order  that  we  may  avoid  the  invidious 
names  of  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic,  which  indeed  have  little  to  say  in  the  matter,  may 
be  distinguished  by  the  usual  names  of  Scotch  and  Irish,  the  former  including  the  descend- 
ants of  all  the  Scotch  and  English  colonists  who  have  emigrated  hither  since  the  time  of 
James  I.,  and  the  latter  comprehending  the  native  and  original  inhabitants  of  the  country. 
Than  these,  no  two  classes  of  men  can  be  more  distinct  :  the  Scotch  are  remarkable  for  their 
comfortable  houses  and  appearance,  regular  conduct,  and  perseverance  in  business,  and  their 
being  almost  entirely  manufacturers  ;  the  Irish,  on  the  other  hand,  are  more  negligent  in 
their  habitations,  less  regular  and  guarded  in  their  conduct,  and  have  a  total  indisposition  to 
manufacture.  Both  are  industrious,  but  the  industry  of  the  Scotch  is  steady  and  patient,  and 
directed  with  foresight,  while  that  of  the  Irish  is  rash,  adventurous,  and  variable." — Statistical 
Account  of Ireland ',  Dublin,  1814,  vol.  ii.,  p.  307. 

2  The  numerous  Protestant  Kellys,  Sullivans,  Murphys,  McMahons,  and  others  show  that 
there  are  exceptions  to  this  general  proposition. 

8W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  ii.,  p.  404. 

4  The  two  counties  which  have  been  most  thoroughly  transformed  by  this  emigration  are 
the  two  which  are  nearest  Scotland,  and  were  the  first  opened  up  for  emigrants.  These  two 
have  been  completely  altered  in  nationality  and  religion.  They  have  become  British,  and  in 
the  main,  certainly  Scottish.  Perhaps  no  better  proof  can  be  given  than  the  family  names  of 
the  inhabitants.  Some  years  ago,  a  patient  local  antiquary  took  the  voters'  list  of  county 
Down  "  of  those  rated  above  ^12  for  poor-rates,"  and  analyzed  it  carefully.  There  were 
10,028  names  on  the  list,  and  these  fairly  represented  the  whole  proper  names  of  the  county. 
He  found  that  the  following  names  occurred  oftenest,  and  arranged  them  in  order  of  their 
frequency  :  Smith,  Martin,  M'Kie,  Moore,  Brown,  Thompson,  Patterson,  Johnson,  Stewart, 
Wilson,  Graham,  Campbell,  Robinson,  Bell,  Hamilton,  Morrow,  Gibson,  Boyd,  Wallace,  and 
Magee.  He  dissected  as  carefully  the  voters'  list  for  county  Antrim,  in  which  there  were 
9538  names,  and  found  that  the  following  were  at  the  top  :  Thompson,  Wilson,  Stewart, 


Who  Are  the  Scotch-Irish?  167 

Smith,  Moore,  Boyd,  Johnson,  M'Millan,  Brown,  Bell,  Campbell,  M'Neill,  Crawford, 
M'Alister,  Hunter,  Macaulay,  Robinson,  Wallace,  Millar,  Kennedy,  and  Hill.  The  list 
has  a  very  Scottish  flavor  altogether,  although  it  may  be  noted  that  the  names  that  are  highest 
on  the  list  are  those  which  are  common  to  both  England  and  Scotland  :  for  it  may  be  taken 
for  granted  that  the  English  "  Thompson  "  has  swallowed  up  the  Scottish  "  Thomson,"  that 
"  Moore"  includes  the  Ayrshire  "  Muir,"  and  that  the  Annandale  '*  Johnstones"  have  been 
merged  by  the  writer  in  the  English"  Johnsons."  One  other  point  is  very  striking  —  that 
the  great  Ulster  name  of  O'Neill  is  wanting,  and  also  the  Antrim  "  Macdonnel."  .  .  . 
Another  strong  proof  of  the  Scottish  blood  of  the  Ulstermen  may  be  found  by  taking  the 
annual  reports  presented  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland, 
held  in  June,  1887.  Here  are  the  names  of  the  men,  lay  and  clerical,  who  sign  these  reports, 
the  names  being  taken  as  they  occur :  J.  W.  Whigham,  Jackson  Smith,  Hamilton  Magee, 
Thomas  Armstrong,  William  Park,  J.  M.  Rodgers,  David  Wilson,  George  Macfarlandr 
Thomas  Lyle,  W.  Rogers,  J.  B.  Wylie,  W.  Young,  E.  F.  Simpson,  Alexander  Turnbull, 
John  Malcolm,  John  H.  Orr.  Probably  the  reports  of  our  three  Scottish  churches  taken 
together  could  not  produce  so  large  an  average  of  Scottish  surnames. —  The  Scot  in  Ulster r 
Edinburgh,  1888,  pp.  103-105. 

5  Many  of  the  settlers  were  English,  but  the  larger  and  more  influential  element  came 
from  the  Calvinists  of  Scotland.  .  .  .  To-day  the  speech  of  Ulster  is  Scotch  rather  than 
English,  showing  which  nationality  has  predominated. — Douglas  Campbell,  The  Puritan  in 
Holland,  England,  and  America y  vol.  ii.,  p.  474. 

•  Towards  the  end  of  the  last  century  ' 4  in  all  social  and  political  matters  the  native  Catho- 
lics, in  other  words  the  immense  majority  of  the  people  of  Ireland,  were  simply  hewers  of 
wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  Protestant  masters,  for  masters  who  still  looked  on  themselves 
as  mere  settlers,  who  boasted  of  their  Scotch  or  English  extraction,  and  who  regarded  the 
name  of  '  Irishman '  as  an  insult."  —  J.  R.  Green,  History  of  the  English  People,  book 
ix.,  ch.  ii. 

Most  of  the  great  evils  of  Irish  politics  during  the  last  two  centuries  have  arisen  from 
the  fact  that  its  different  classes  and  creeds  have  never  been  really  blended  into  one  nation, 
that  the  repulsion  of  race  or  of  religion  has  been  stronger  than  the  attraction  of  a  common 
nationality,  and  that  the  full  energies  and  intellect  of  the  country  have  in  consequence  seldom 
or  never  been  enlisted  in  a  common  cause. — Lecky,  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  vol. 
ii.,  p.  505.  Am.  ed.,  pp.  440  and  441.  Travellers  tell  us  that  to-day  in  sections  of  Ulster 
the  population  is  Scotch  and  not  Irish. 

1  A  considerable  portion  of  the  English  colonists,  especially  those  who  came  to  the  Lon- 
don settlement  in  Londonderry  county,  were  Puritans,  and  joined  with  the  Scots  in  church 
affairs.  A  strong  Calvinistic  element  was  also  afterwards  infused  into  the  district  by  the 
French  Huguenots,  who  settled  in  different  parts  of  Ireland  after  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict 
of  Nantes. — Harrison,  The  Scot  in  Ulster,  p.  21. 

"  While  along  the  shores  of  Down  and  Antrim,  and  by  the  banks  of  the  Six-Mile  Water 
and  the  Main,  the  colonists  are  almost  wholly  from  the  Lowlands  of  Scotland  ;  upon  the 
shores  of  Derry  and  Donegal,  and  by  the  banks  of  the  Foyle  and  the  Bann,  were  planted  by 
the  action  of  the  same  far-seeing  James  Stuart,  bands  of  English  colonists.  Large  grants  of 
land  in  the  escheated  counties  of  Ulster  were  bestowed  upon  the  great  London  companies, 
and  on  their  vast  estates  by  the  Foyle  and  the  Bann  were  settled  considerable  numbers 
of  fine  old  English  families.  The  Englishmen  may  be  easily  traced  to  this  very  day  in 
Derry,  and  Coleraine,  and  Armagh,  and  Enniskillen.  Groups  of  these  Puritans  dotted  the 
whole  expanse  of  Ulster,  and  in  a  later  hour,  when  the  magnificent  Cromwell  took  hold  of 
Ireland,  these  English  colonists  were  reinforced  by  not  a  few  of  the  very  bravest  and  strongest 
of  the  Ironsides.  To  this  very  hour  I  know  where  to  lay  my  hands  on  the  direct  lineal  de- 
scendants of  some  of  Cromwell's  most  trusted  officers,  who  brought  to  Ireland  blood  that 
flowed  in  the  purest  English  veins.     The  defiant  city  of  Derry  was  the  fruit  of  the  English 


1 68  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

settlement,  the  royal  borough  of  Coleraine,  the  cathedral  city  of  Armagh,  the  battle-swept 
Enniskillen,  and  several  towns  and  hamlets  along  the  winding  Bann.  Among  these  English 
settlers  were  not  a  few  who  were  ardent  followers  of  George  Fox,  that  man  who  in  many 
respects  was  Cromwell's  equal,  and  in  some  his  master ;  these  Friends  came  with  a  man  of 
great  force  of  character,  Thomas  Edmundson,  who  bore  arms  for  the  Parliament,  and  has  left 
behind  him  a  singularly  interesting  diary.  The  Friends  came  to  Antrim  in  1652,  and  settled 
in  Antrim  and  Down  ;  hence  come  the  Pims,  the  Barclays,  the  Grubbs,  and  Richardsons, 
with  many  another  goodly  name  of  Ulster. 

"  The  name  of  this  Irish  province  was  spreading  over  Europe  by  the  second  decade  of 
the  seventeenth  century  as  the  '  shelter  of  the  hunted  '  ;  and  soon  the  Puritan  and  the  Quaker 
are  joined  in  Ulster  by  another  nobleman  of  God's  making  —  the  Huguenot  from  France. 
Headed  by  Louis  Crommellin  they  came  a  little  later  and  settled  in  and  around  Lisburn, 
founding  many  of  the  finest  industries  of  Ulster,  and  giving  mighty  impulse  to  those  already 
started.  And  still  later,  following  the  '  immortal  William  '  came  some  brave  burghers  from 
Holland  and  the  Netherlands.  Thus  Ulster  became  a  gathering  ground  for  the  very 
finest,  most  formative,  impulsive,  and  aggressive  of  the  free,  enlightened,  God-fearing 
peoples  of  Europe." — J.  S.  Macintosh,  "The  Making  of  the  Ulsterman,"  Scotch-Irish 
Society  of  America  Proceedings,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  98,  99. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

SCOTLAND   OF   TO-DAY 

IT  has  been  said  of  the  modern  Scottish  race  by  some  of  its  enthusiastic  sons 
that,  in  proportion  to  its  numbers,  that  race  has  produced  more  men  who 
have  taken  a  prominent  part  in  the  affairs  of  the  English  speaking  world  than 
has  any  other.  Whether  this  be  true  or  not,  there  are  two  facts  bearing  upon 
that  phase  of  Scottish  race-history  to  which  attention  may  properly  be 
called.  The  first  and  most  important  fact  is,  that  nearly  all  the  men  of 
Scottish  birth  or  descent  who  are  renowned  in  history  trace  their  family 
origin  back  to  the  western  Lowlands  of  Scotland.  That  is  to  say,  the  district 
comprising  the  counties  of  Lanark,  Renfrew,  Ayr,  Dumfries,  Wigtown,  Kirk- 
cudbright, and  Dumbarton — in  area  about  the  same  as  Connecticut,  and  the 
most  of  which  was  formerly  included  in  the  Celto-British  kingdom  of  Strath- 
clyde, —  has  produced  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  men  and  families  who 
have  made  the  name  of  Scotland  famous  in  the  world's  history.1 

In  this  district  are  to  be  found  the  chief  evidences  in  Scotland  of  the 
birth  or  residence  of  King  Arthur  and  his  Knights  of  the  Round  Table. 
Dumbartonshire  is  the  reputed  birthplace  of  St.  Patrick,  Ireland's  teacher 
and  patron  saint.  Elderslie,  in  Renfrewshire,  is  said  to  have  been  the  birth- 
place of  Scotland's  national  hero,  William  Wallace.  Robert  Bruce  also,  son 
of  Marjorie,  Countess  of  Carrick  and  daughter  of  Nigel  or  Niall  (who  was 
himself  the  Celtic  Earl  of  Carrick  and  grandson  of  Gilbert,  son  of  Fergus,  Lord 
of  Galloway),  was,  according  to  popular  belief,  born  at  his  mother's  castle  of 
Turnberry,  in  Ayrshire.  The  seat  of  the  High  Stewards  of  Scotland, 
ancestors  of  the  royal  family  of  the  Stuarts,  was  in  Renfrewshire.  The 
paternal  grandfather  of  William  Ewart  Gladstone  was  born  in  Lanarkshire. 
John  Knox's  father  is  said  to  have  belonged  to  the  Knox  family  of  Renfrew- 
shire. Robert  Burns  was  born  in  Ayrshire.  The  sect  called  the  "  Lollards," 
who  were  the  earliest  Protestant  reformers  in  Scotland,  appear  first  in  Scottish 
history  as  coming  from  Kyle  in  Ayrshire,  the  same  district  which  afterwards 
furnished  a  large  part  of  the  leaders  and  armies  of  the  Reformation.  The 
Covenanters  and  their  armies  of  the  seventeenth  century  were  mainly  from 
the  same  part  of  the  kingdom.  Glasgow,  the  greatest  manufacturing  city  of 
Europe,  is  situated  in  the  heart  of  this  district.  These  same  seven  coun- 
ties also  furnished  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Scottish  colonists  of  Ulster, 
in  Ireland,  from  whom  are  descended  a  large  proportion  of  ihe  Scotch-Irish 
who  have  become  famous  in  American  history.3 

The  second  fact  about  the  race-history  of  Scotland  and  one  that  in  a 
measure  accounts  for  the  first,  is,  that  the  population  of  the  western  Low- 
lands during  the  past  six  hundred  years  has  consisted  of   a  mixed  or  com- 

169 


170  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

posite  race,  made  up  of  a  number  of  different  and  originally  very  dissimilar 
racial  elements.  The  basis  of  the  race  was  the  Romanized  Briton  who  lived 
u  between  the  walls,"  built  by  the  Romans  across  the  island  of  Great  Britain 
in  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian.*  Chiefly  from  these  early  Britons — 
or  Welsh  (i.  e.,  "aliens"),  as  they  were  called  by  the  Anglic  invaders, — 
the  Ulster  Scot  gets  his  Celtic  blood,  and  not  from  the  Gaels  of  modern 
Ireland.  The  Britons  were  in  part  Brythonic  or  Cymric  Celts,  identical  with 
some  of  the  tribesmen  of  Gaul  who  are  described  by  Caesar  ;  in  part  Gaelic 
Celts,  who  had  preceded  the  Cymri  some  centuries  in  their  migration  to  the 
islands  ;  in  part  non-Celtic  and  non-Aryan  Aborigines,  whom  the  Gaels 
found  there  ;  and  in  part  a  blended  race,  comprising  all  these  basic  ele- 
ments, with  an  additional  Roman  element  furnished  from  the  Roman  legions 
(provincial  and  imperial),  which  for  four  centuries  traversed,  harried,  and 
dominated  the  island  of  Great  Britain.  As  time  passed,  there  came  marked 
departures  from  the  original  type,  occasioned  by  intermarriages,  first  with  the 
Picts  and  Scots,  then  with  the  Angles  and  Danes  who  occupied  and  largely 
peopled  the  eastern  coast  of  Scotland,  and  with  the  Norsemen,  who  settled  in 
the  southwest.8  From  the  last-named  stock  comes  most  of  the  Teutonic 
blood  of  the  Ulster  Scots,  or  Scotch-Irish.  After  the  eleventh  century,  the 
Normans  came  from  England  into  Scotland  in  large  numbers,  and  occupied 
much  of  the  land,  their  leaders  frequently  intermarrying  with  the  daughters 
of  native  Celtic  chieftains.  Long  before  the  seventeenth  century,  in  the 
early  years  of  which  the  Scottish  emigration  to  Ireland  began,  the  various 
race-groups  of  the  western  Lowlands  of  Scotland  had  become  fused  into  one 
composite  whole,  having  the  attributes  of  the  Celt,  the  Norse,  the  Angle,  and 
the  Norman  ;  thus  typifying  many  centuries  ago  the  identical  race  which  the 
world  to-day  is  beginning  to  recognize  as  the  American — an  amalgamation 
of  the  Teutonic  and  the  Celtic,  having  the  staying  qualities  of  the  one,  with 
the  grace,  adaptability,  and  mental  brilliancy  of  the  other. 


"  The  Scottish  Lowlanders  are  a  very  mixed  race,"  says  Reclus,  the 
French  traveller  and  geographer,  "  and  even  their  name  is  a  singular  proof 
of  it.  Scotland  was  originally  known  as  Hibernia,  or  Igbernia,4  whilst 
the  name  of  Scotia,  from  the  end  of  the  sixth  to  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh 
century,  was  exclusively  applied  to  modern  Ireland.  The  two  countries  have 
consequently  exchanged  names." 

John  of  Fordun,  the  first  of  the  early  historians  of  Scotland  whose  writ- 
ings can  even  in  part  be  relied  upon,  has  given  us  the  following  description 
of  Scotland  as  it  existed  in  his  day  (he  died  shortly  after  1384)  : 

Scotia  is  so  named  after  the  Scottish  tribes  by  which  it  is  inhabited.  At 
first,  it  began  from  the  Scottish  firth  on  the  south,  and,  later  on,  from  the 

*  One  wall  ran  east  from  the  Clyde  and  the  other  from  the  Solway. 


Scotland  of  To-Day  171 

river  Humber,  where  Albania  also  began.  Afterwards,  however,  it  com- 
menced at  the  wall  Thirlwal,  which  Severus  had  built  to  the  river  Tyne. 
But  now  it  begins  at  the  river  Tweed,  the  northern  boundary  of  England, 
and,  stretching  rather  less  than  four  hundred  miles  in  length,  in  a  north- 
westerly direction,  is  bounded  by  the  Pentland  Firth,  where  a  fearfully 
dangerous  whirlpool  sucks  in  and  belches  back  the  waters  every  hour.  It  is 
a  country  strong  by  nature,  and  difficult  and  toilsome  of  access.  In  some 
parts,  it  towers  into  mountains  ;  in  others,  it  sinks  down  into  plains.  For 
lofty  mountains  stretch  through  the  midst  of  it,  from  end  to  end,  as  do  the 
tall  Alps  through  Europe  ;  and  these  mountains  formerly  separated  the  Scots 
from  the  Picts,  and  their  kingdoms  from  each  other.  Impassable  as  they  are 
on  horseback,  save  in  very  few  places,  they  can  hardly  be  crossed  even  on 
foot,  both  on  account  of  the  snow  always  lying  on  them,  except  in  summer- 
time only  ;  and  by  reason  of  the  boulders  torn  off  the  beetling  crags,  and  the 
deep  hollows  in  their  midst.  Along  the  foot  of  these  mountains  are  vast 
woods  full  of  stags,  roe-deer,  and  other  wild  animals  and  beasts  of  various 
kinds  ;  and  these  forests  oftentimes  afford  a  strong  and  safe  protection  to  the 
cattle  of  the  inhabitants  against  the  depredations  of  their  enemies  ;  for  the 
herds  in  those  parts,  they  say,  are  accustomed,  from  use,  whenever  they  hear 
the  shouts  of  men  and  women,  and  if  suddenly  attacked  by  dogs,  to  flock 
hastily  into  the  woods.  Numberless  springs  also  well  up,  and  burst  forth 
from  the  hills  and  the  sloping  ridges  of  the  mountains,  and,  trickling  down 
with  sweetest  sound,  in  crystal  rivulets  between  flowery  banks,  flow  together 
through  the  level  vales,  and  give  birth  to  many  streams  ;  and  these  again  to 
large  rivers,  in  which  Scotia  marvellously  abounds,  beyond  any  other  country; 
and  at  their  mouths,  where  they  rejoin  the  sea,  she  has  noble  and  secure 
harbors. 

Scotia,  also,  has  tracts  of  land  bordering  on  the  sea,  pretty,  level,  and  rich, 
with  green  meadows,  and  fertile  and  productive  fields  of  corn  and  barley,  and 
well  adapted  for  growing  beans,  peas,  and  all  other  produce  ;  destitute,  how- 
ever, of  wine  and  oil,  though  by  no  means  so  of  honey  and  wax.  But  in  the 
upland  districts,  and  along  the  highlands,  the  fields  are  less  productive,  except 
only  in  oats  and  barley.  The  country  is,  there,  very  hideous,  interspersed 
with  moors  and  marshy  fields,  muddy  and  dirty  ;  it  is,  however,  full  of  pas- 
turage grass  for  cattle,  and  comely  with  verdure  in  the  glens,  along  the  water- 
courses. This  region  abounds  in  wool-bearing  sheep,  and  in  horses  ;  and  its 
soil  is  grassy,  feeds  cattle  and  wild  beasts,  is  rich  in  milk  and  wool,  and  mani- 
fold in  its  wealth  of  fish,  in  sea,  river,  and  lake.  It  is  also  noted  for  birds  of 
many  sorts.  There  noble  falcons,  of  soaring  flight  and  boundless  courage, 
are  to  be  found,  and  hawks  of  matchless  daring.  Marble  of  two  or  three 
colors,  that  is,  black,  variegated,  and  white,  as  well  as  alabaster,  is  also 
found  there.  It  also  produces  a  good  deal  of  iron  and  lead,  and  nearly  all 
metals. 

The  manners  and  customs  of  the  Scots  vary  with  the  diversity  of  their 
speech.  For  two  languages  are  spoken  amongst  them,  the  Scottish  and  the 
Teutonic  ;  the  latter  of  which  is  the  language  of  those  who  occupy  the  sea- 
board and  plains,  while  the  race  of  Scottish  speech  inhabit  the  highlands  and 
outlying  islands.6  The  people  of  the  coast  are  of  domestic  and  civilized 
habits,  trusty,  patient,  and  urbane,  decent  in  their  attire,  affable,  and  peace- 
ful, devout  in  Divine  worship,  yet  always  prone  to  resist  a  wrong  at  the  hand 
of  their  enemies.  The  highlanders  and  people  of  the  islands,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  a  savage  and  untamed  nation,  rude  and  independent,  given  to 
rapine,  ease-loving,  of  a  docile  and  warm  disposition,  comely  in  person,  but 


172  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

unsightly  in  dress,  hostile  to  the  English  people  and  language,  and,  owing  to 
diversity  of  speech,  even  to  their  own  nation,  and  exceedingly  cruel.  They 
are,  however,  faithful  and  obedient  to  their  king  and  country,  and  easily 
made  to  submit  to  law  if  properly  governed. 

The  Picts  or  Caledonians,  who  lived  in  the  country  at  the  time  of  its 
conquest  by  the  Romans,  do  not  appear  to  have  formed  a  strong  element  of 
the  actual  population  of  the  Scottish  Lowlands.8  The  inhabitants  of  that 
part  of  the  country  seem  for  the  most  part  to  be  of  British  and  Anglo-Celtic 
race.  The  line  which  separated  the  Britons  from  the  Picts  runs,  approx- 
imately, across  the  isthmus  of  the  Clyde  and  Forth  ;  the  ancient  wall  of 
Antoninus  thus  marking  an  ethnological  frontier  no  less  than  a  political 
one.  But  Angles  and  Britons  were  compelled  to  share  their  territory  with 
emigrants  of  various  races,  including  the  Scots  of  Ireland,  Frisians,  North- 
men, and  Danes.  "  At  some  places,"  says  Reclus,  "  and  more  especially 
along  the  coast,  people  of  different  origin  live  in  close  contact  with  each 
other,  and  yet  remain  separate.  Their  blood  has  not  mingled  ;  habits, 
customs,  and  modes  of  thought  and  action  have  remained  distinct.  Along  the 
whole  of  the  coast,  on  that  of  the  German  Ocean,  no  less  than  on  that  of  the 
Irish  Sea,  we  meet  with  colonies  of  fishermen,  some  of  whom  claim  descent 
from  the  Northmen,  whilst  others  look  upon  the  Danes  as  their  ancestors. 
There  are  even  colonies  which  tradition  derives  from  Flanders.  Several  of 
the  maritime  villages  consist  of  two  portions  like  the  towns  on  the  coasts  of 
Catalonia,  Liguria,  and  Sicily,  the  upper  part  being  inhabited  by  Saxon  arti- 
sans and  agriculturists,  while  the  lower  part  forms  the  *  Marina  '  of  Scandi- 
navian fishermen.  These  various  elements  of  the  population  have,  however, 
become  fused  in  the  greater  part  of  the  country.  Physically  the  Scotchman 
resembles  the  Norwegian,  and  this  is  not  solely  due  to  a  similarity  of  climate, 
but  also  to  the  numerous  unions  between  Scandinavian  invaders  and  the 
daughters  of  the  country.  The  languages  of  the  two  countries  also  possess 
more  features  in  common  than  was  formerly  believed.  The  Scotch  speak 
English  with  a  peculiar  accent  which  at  once  betrays  their  origin.  Their 
intonation  differs  from  that  of  the  English,  and  they  suppress  certain  con- 
sonants in  the  middle  and  at  the  end  of  words.  They  still  employ  certain 
old  English  terms,  no  longer  made  use  of  to  the  south  of  the  Tweed,  and, 
on  the  strength  of  this,  patriotic  Scotchmen  claim  to  speak  English  with 
greater  purity  than  their  southern  neighbors.  Amongst  the  many  words  of 
foreign  derivation  in  common  use,  there  are  several  French  ones,  not  only 
such  as  were  introduced  by  the  Normans,  but  also  others  belonging  to  the 
time  when  the  two  peoples  were  faithful  allies,  and  supplied  each  other  with 
soldiers. 

"  The  Scotch  Lowlander  is,  as  a  rule,  of  fair  height,  long-legged,  strongly 
built,  and  without  any  tendency  to  the  obesity  so  common  amongst  his  kins- 
men of  England.  His  eye  is  ordinarily  brighter  than  that  of  the  English- 
man, and  his  features  more  regular  ;  but  his  cheeks  are  more  prominent, 


Scotland  of  To-Day  173 

and  the  leanness  of  the  face  helps  much  to  accentuate  these  features.  In 
these  respects  he  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  his  American  cousins. 
Comparative  inquiries  instituted  by  Forbes  prove  that  physical  development 
is  somewhat  slower  amongst  Scotchmen  than  amongst  Englishmen  ;  the  for- 
mer comes  up  to  the  latter  in  height  and  strength  only  at  the  age  of  nine- 
teen, but  in  his  ripe  age  he  surpasses  him  to  the  extent  of  about  five  per 
cent,  in  muscular  strength.7  Of  all  the  men  of  Great  Britain,  those  of  south- 
western Scotland  are  distinguished  for  their  tall  stature.  The  men  of  Gal- 
loway average  5  feet  7  inches  in  height,  which  is  superior  to  the  stature 
attained  in  any  other  district  of  the  British  Islands.  The  Lowlander  is  in- 
telligent, of  remarkable  sagacity  in  business,  and  persevering  when  once  he 
has  determined  upon  accomplishing  a  task  ;  but  his  prudence  degenerates 
into  distrust,  his  thrift  into  avarice.  As  in  America,  there  is  not  a  village 
without  one  or  more  banks.  When  abroad  he  seeks  out  his  fellow-country- 
men, derives  a  pleasure  in  being  useful  to  them,  and  helps  their  success  in 
life  to  the  best  of  his  ability. 

"  The  achievements  of  Scotch  agriculturists,  who  are  so  little  favored  by 
climate,  must  appear  marvellous  to  the  peasants  of  Italy  and  of  many  parts 
of  France.  Under  the  fifty-sixth  degree  of  latitude  they  secure  crops  far 
more  abundant  than  those  obtained  from  the  fertile  lands  on  the  Mediterra- 
nean, which  are  nine  hundred  miles  nearer  to  the  equator.  Human  labor 
and  ingenuity  have  succeeded  in  acclimatizing  plants  which  hardly  appear  to 
be  suited  to  the  soil  and  climate  of  Scotland.  About  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  a  patch  of  wheat  was  pointed  out  near  Edinburgh  as  a 
curiosity,  whilst  now  that  cereal  grows  in  abundance  as  far  north  as  the 
Moray  Firth.  And  yet  it  appears  as  if  the  climate  had  become  colder,  for 
it  is  no  longer  possible  to  cultivate  the  poppy  or  tobacco,  as  was  done  in  the 
beginning  of  the  century.  Several  varieties  of  apples,  pears,  and  prunes, 
formerly  in  high  repute,  no  longer  arrive  at  maturity,  and  the  horticultural 
societies  have  ceased  offering  prizes  for  these  productions,  because  it  is  no 
longer  possible  to  grow  them  in  the  open  air.  The  manufacturing  triumphs 
of  Scotland  have  been  quite  equal  to  those  achieved  -in  agriculture,  and  it  is 
on  Scottish  soil  that  Glasgow,  the  foremost  manufacturing  town  of  the 
United  Kingdom,  has  arisen,  with  a  population  greater  than  that  of  either 
Manchester,  Leeds,  or  Birmingham.  Scotland,  through  her  numerous  emi- 
grants who  live  in  London  and  the  other  great  towns,  has  also  largely  con- 
tributed towards  the  prosperity  of  England.  The  hawkers  in  the  English 
manufacturing  districts  are  usually  known  as  '  Scotchmen.'  The  Scotch 
colonists  in  New  Zealand  and  Canada  are  amongst  the  most  active  and  in- 
dustrious, and  the  young  Lowlanders  who  go  out  to  India  as  government 
officials  are  far  more  numerous  in  proportion  than  those  from  England. 

"  The  love  of  education  for  its  own  sake,  and  not  merely  as  a  means  to  an 
end,  is  far  more  widely  spread  in  Scotland  than  in  England.  The  lectures 
at  the  universities  are  attended  with  a  zeal  which  the  students  of  Oxford 


174  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

or  Cambridge  seldom  exhibit.  It  is  by  no  means  rare  to  meet  pupils  in 
elementary  schools  who  are  passionately  fond  of  study,  and  the  humble  homes 
of  artisans  and  laborers  frequently  contain  a  select  library  which  would  do 
credit  to  a  wealthy  English  tradesman.  At  the  same  time  there  are  not 
wanting  young  men  who  accelerate  their  studies  in  order  that  they  may  se- 
cure the  certificates  which  form  their  passport  to  lucrative  employment. 
They  work  hard,  no  doubt,  but  they  strive  not  after  knowledge,  but  for  ma- 
terial gain.  The  students  of  Edinburgh  have  little  time  to  devote  to  those 
exercises  of  strength  and  skill  which  are  so  highly  cultivated  at  Oxford  and 
Cambridge.8  By  a  curious  contrast,  these  Scotchmen,  so  practical  and  full 
of  common  sense,  have  an  extraordinary  love  for  the  supernatural.  They 
delight  in  stories  of  terror  and  of  ghosts.  Though  clever  architects  of  their 
own  fortunes,  they  are  yet  fatalists,  and  the  religious  sects  of  which  most  of 
them  are  members  defend  with  singular  fervor  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion. Thousands  amongst  the  peasants,  dressed  in  clerical  black,  are  veri- 
table theologians,  and  know  how  to  discuss  the  articles  of  their  faith  with  a 
great  luxury  of  Scripture  texts.  As  Emerson  says,  they  allow  their  dialectics 
to  carry  them  to  the  extremes  of  insanity.  In  no  other  country  of  the  world 
is  the  Sabbath  observed  with  such  rigor  as  in  Scotland.  On  that  day  many 
of  the  trains  and  steamers  cease  running,  and  silence  reigns  throughout  the 
land.  There  are  even  landed  proprietors  who  taboo  their  hills  on  that  day, 
and  if  a  tourist  is  found  wandering  amongst  them  he  is  treated  as  a  reckless 
violator  of  the  proprieties." 

Who  were  the  earliest  inhabitants  of  the  Scottish  Highlands  ?  Of  what 
race  were  the  Picts,  who  formerly  inhabited  the  country,  and  over  whom 
even  the  Romans  could  not  triumph  ?  Were  they  pure  Celts,  or  had  their 
blood  already  mingled  with  that  of  Scandinavia  ?  It  is  usually  believed  that 
the  Picts  had  preceded  the  other  Britons  in  their  migration  to  the  island, 
coming  at  a  very  early  age,  and  that  their  idioms  differed  much  more  from 
the  dialect  spoken  in  Gaul  than  did  Cymric.  They  originally  inhabited, 
perhaps,  the  whole  of  Great  Britain,  and  were  pushed  to  the  northward  by 
the  Britons,  who  in  turn  were  displaced  by  Romans  and  Angles.9 

Numerous  stone  monuments,  known  as  Picts'  "  houses,"  or  weems,  and 
invariably  consisting  of  a  chamber  or  centre  passage  surrounded  by  smaller 
apartments,  are  attributed  to  these  aborigines.  The  mainland,  and  to  a 
great  extent  the  islands,  abound  in  broughs,  or  borgs — that  is,  towers  of 
defence,  resembling,  at  least  externally,  the  nuraghe  of  Sardinia.  On  the 
Shetland  Islands  there  are  seventy-five  of  these  towers,  and  in  the  Orkneys 
seventy.  Petrie,  who  has  examined  forty  of  them,  looked  upon  them  as 
fortified  dwelling-houses.  Their  circular  walls  are  twelve  feet  and  more  in 
thickness  ;  their  original  height  is  not  known,  for  every  one  of  them  has 
reached  us  in  a  partial  state  of  demolition.  Pestles  for  crushing  corn,  stone 
lamps,  and  vessels  made  of  the  bone  of  whales  testify  to  the  rudimentary 
state  of  civilization  which  the  inhabitants  had  attained.     The  Brough  of 


Scotland  of  To-Day  175 

Mousa,  to  the  south  of  Lerwick,  bulges  out  near  its  base,  probably  to  prevent 
the  use  of  scaling  ladders,  and  recesses  occur  at  regular  intervals  on  the 
inside  of  the  wall.  Cromlechs,  cairns,  standing  stones,  symbolical  sculptures, 
circles  of  stones,  pile  dwellings,  and  vitrified  forts  are  found  in  several  local- 
ities both  on  the  mainland  and  the  islands.  Primitive  monuments  of  this 
kind  form  one  of  the  most  salient  landscape  features  in  the  Orkneys.  On 
Pomona  there  is  a  district  of  several  square  miles  in  area  which  still  abounds 
in  prehistoric  monuments  of  every  description,  although  many  stones  have 
been  carried  away  by  the  neighboring  farmers.  In  the  tumulus  of  Meashow, 
opened  in  186 1,  were  discovered  over  nine  hundred  Runic  inscriptions,  and 
the  carved  images  of  fanciful  animals.  On  the  same  island  are  the  standing 
stones  of  Stennis  ;  and  on  Lewis,  twelve  miles  to  the  west  of  Stornoway,  the 
"  gray  stones  of  Callernish."  These  latter,  forty-eight  in  number,  are  also 
known  as  Tuirsachan,  or  "  Field  of  Mourning,"  and  they  still  form  a  perfect 
circle,  partly  buried  in  peat,  which  has  grown  to  a  height  of  from  six  to 
twelve  feet  around  them.10  We  know  that  these  constructions  belong  to 
different  ages,  and  that  now  and  then  the  stones  raised  by  the  earliest  build- 
ers were  added  to  by  their  successors.  Christian  inscriptions  in  oghams  and 
runes,  in  characters  not  older,  according  to  Munch,  than  the  beginning  of  the 
twelfth  century,  have  been  discovered  on  these  monuments.  At  Newton,  in 
Aberdeenshire,  there  is  a  stone  inscribed  in  curiously  shaped  letters,  not  yet 
deciphered. 

Notwithstanding  a  change  of  religion,  these  sacred  places  of  the  ancient 
inhabitants  still  attract  pilgrims.  On  South  Uist  the  people  until  recently 
walked  in  procession  around  a  huge  pile  of  rocks,  turning  thrice  in  following 
the  apparent  path  of  the  sun.  The  small  island  of  Iona  at  the  western 
extremity  of  Mull  is  one  of  those  places  which  have  been  held  sacred  for 
generations.  Various  stone  monuments  prove  that  this  spot  was  held  in 
veneration  at  the  dawn  of  history,  and  this  probably  induced  the  Irish 
apostle,  St.  Columba,  to  found  here  a  monastery — the  "  light  of  the  western 
world  " — which  soon  became  the  most  famous  in  Great  Britain.  Hence 
went  forth  those  ascetic  Culdees  whom  the  jealousy  of  the  clergy  caused  to 
disappear  in  the  course  of  the  thirteenth  century."  In  the  ruined  ecclesias- 
tical buildings  of  this  islet  are  buried  more  than  sixty  kings  of  Scotland, 
Ireland,  and  the  Hebrides,  the  last  interred  here  having  been  Macbeth.  A 
prophecy  says  that  one  day  the  whole  earth  will  be  swallowed  up  by  a 
deluge,  with  the  exception  of  Iona.  There  was  a  time  when  this  venerated 
island  was  interdicted  to  women,  as  Mount  Athos  is  at  the  present  day.  Not 
far  from  the  church  lay  the  "  black  stones,"  thus  called  on  account  of  the 
malediction  attaching  to  him  who  foreswore  himself  by  their  side.  It  was 
here  that  the  "  Lords  of  the  Isles,"  kneeling  on  the  ground  with  their  hands 
raised  to  heaven,  were  bound  to  swear  to  maintain  intact  the  rights  of  their 
vassals.13  Among  the  heaps  of  rocks  piled  up  on  the  beach,  it  is  said  by 
monks  in  expiation  of  their  trespasses,  are  found  fine  fragments  of  granite, 


176  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

porphyry,  and  serpentine,  which  the  inhabitants  employ  Scotch  workmen  to 
cut  and  polish,  in  order  that  they  may  sell  them  as  amulets  to  their  visitors. 
Formerly  these  stones  were  looked  upon  throughout  the  Hebrides  as  the 
most  efficacious  medicine  against  sorcery  ;  and  when  about  to  be  married  a 
bridegroom,  to  insure  happiness,  placed  a  stone  of  Iona  upon  his  bare 
left  foot.1* 

The  Scotch  Highlanders  are  more  or  less  mixed  with  Scandinavians,  for 
the  Northmen,  who  for  centuries  held  possession  of  the  Orkneys,  gained  a 
footing  also  upon  the  mainland,  where  they  founded  numerous  colonies. 
Scandinavian  family  names  are  frequent  in  the  Orkneys,  but  the  type  of  the 
inhabitants  is  nevertheless  Scotch.14  The  geographical  nomenclature  of 
the  Shetland  Isles  is  wholly  Norwegian.  The  names  of  farms  terminate  in 
seter  or  ster,  and  those  of  hills  in  hoy  or  hole.  In  1820  the  sword  dance  of 
the  ancient  Norwegians  might  still  be  witnessed  on  one  of  the  islands,  and, 
according  to  Gifford,16  Norse  was  spoken  in  a  few  families  as  recently  as 
1786.  Sutherland  clearly  formed  part  of  the  old  domain  of  the  North- 
men. That  county  lies  at  the  northern  extremity  of  Scotland  ;  but  to  the 
inhabitant  of  the  Orkneys  it  was  a  Southern  Land,  and  the  name  which  they 
gave  to  it  has  survived  to  our  own  time. 

A  few  Scandinavian  colonies  on  the  mainland  have  retained  their  distinct 
character.  As  an  instance  may  be  mentioned  the  village  of  Ness  on  Lewis, 
the  inhabitants  of  which  are  distinguished  for  their  enterprise,  presenting  a 
singular  contrast  to  the  sluggishness  of  their  Gaelic  neighbors.  The  descend- 
ants of  these  hostile  races  have,  like  oil  and  water,  long  refused  to  mingle. 
It  would  nevertheless  be  next  to  impossible  to  define  the  boundaries  between 
the  various  races  throughout  the  country.  Language  certainly  would  prove 
no  safe  guide,  for  many  of  the  Gaels  have  given  up  their  language  and  speak 
English.  Out  of  5,000,000  Scotchmen,  only  350,000  are  able  to  express 
themselves  in  Gaelic,  and  of  these  only  70,000  are  ignorant  of  English.1*  As 
to  the  Scandinavians,  not  one  amongst  their  descendants  now  speaks  Old 
Norse.  The  greater  number  of  them  speak  English,  but  many,  too,  have 
adopted  Gaelic.  In  most  of  the  islands  the  names  of  places  are  Danish, 
although  Gaelic  has  for  centuries  been  the  spoken  language.  Even  in  St. 
Kilda,  remote  as  is  its  situation,  an  intermingling  of  Gaels  and  Northmen  has 
been  recognized. 

The  use  of  Gaelic  was  discontinued  at  the  court  of  Scotland  about 
the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century,  and  it  is  doomed  to  disappear.  Far 
poorer  in  its  literature  and  less  cultivated  than  Welsh,  its  domain  diminishes 
with  every  decade,  for  English  is  now  almost  universally  spoken  in  the 
towns,  and  the  Highland  valleys  are  becoming  depopulated,  or  invaded  by 
Saxon  sportsmen  and  graziers.  If  Caledonia  really  stands  for  Gael-Dun,  or 
"  Mountain  of  the  Gael,"  then  its  limits  are  becoming  narrower  every  time 
the  meshes  of  the  network  of  railroads  are  drawn  tighter.  But  though 
Celtic  may  disappear  as  a  spoken  language,  the  geographical  nomenclature: 


Scotland  of  To-Day  177 

of  Scotland  will  for  all  time  bear  witness  to  its  ancient  domination.  Those 
acquainted  with  Gaelic  may  obtain  a  tolerably  correct  notion  of  the  relief  of 
the  ground  by  merely  studying  the  names  upon  a  map.  Names  like  ben, 
earn,  carr,  carragh,  cnoc,  ereag,  cruach,  dun,  mam,  meal,  monadh,  sguir,  sith, 
sithean,  sliabh,  stob,  slue,  tolm,  torr,  and  tullich,  will  suggest  to  their  minds 
variously  shaped  mountains  ;  eye,  i,  and  innis  denote  islands  ;  linne  and  loch 
represent  lakes  or  gulfs  ;  abh,  abhuinn,  uisge,  esk,  and  buinne,  stand  for  rivers 
or  torrents.  Inver  in  the  west,  and  Aber  in  the  east,  indicate  the  mouths  of 
rivers.  The  names  Albainn,  Albeinn,  or  Albion,  by  which  the  Gaels  were 
formerly  designated,  are  now  applied  to  all  Britain.  The  Gaelic  bards  speak 
of  their  fellow-countrymen  by  preference  as  Albannaich,  or  "  Mountaineers."  1T 
The  Albannaich  of  the  Grampians  and  the  Albanians  of  the  Pindus  are  thus 
known  by  a  similar  name,  having  possibly  the  same  meaning. 

The  translation  of  one  of  John  Knox's  religious  works  was  the  first  book 
printed  in  Gaelic,  and  thus,  as  in  Wales,  the  Reformation  conferred  upon 
the  language  of  the  people  an  importance  which  it  had  not  possessed  before. 
But  whilst  in  Wales  religious  zeal,  through  its  manifestation  in  the  pulpit 
and  the  press,  has  contributed  in  a  large  measure  to  keep  alive  the  native 
idiom,  the  division  of  the  Highlanders  into  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants 
has  resulted  in  a  diminution  of  the  collective  patriotism  of  the  people,  as  it 
reveals  itself  in  language.  Roman  Catholics  are  numerous  in  the  county  of 
Inverness,  and  it  merely  depended  upon  the  chief  of  a  clan  whether  his 
followers  remained  true  to  the  old  faith  or  embraced  the  new.  Canna  and 
Eigg  are  the  only  Hebrides  the  inhabitants  of  which  remained  Roman 
Catholics.  Those  of  the  larger  island  of  Rum,  it  is  said,  hesitated  what  to 
do,  when  the  chief  of  the  MacLeods,  armed  with  a  yellow  cudgel,  threw 
himself  in  the  way  of  a  procession  marching  in  the  direction  of  the  Romish 
church,  and  drove  the  faithful  to  the  temple  which  he  patronized. 
Hence  Protestantism  on  that  island  is  known  to  the  present  day  as  the  "  Re- 
ligion of  the  Yellow  Cudgel."  18  But  notwithstanding  these  changes  of  religion 
many  superstitions  survive  amongst  the  people.  In  Lewis,  "  stone "  and 
"  church  "  are  synonymous  terms,  as  they  were  in  the  time  when  all  religious 
ceremonies  were  performed  around  sacred  megaliths.19 

The  fame  of  the  Highlanders  had  been  sung  by  poets  and  novelists, 
until  they  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  typical  for  bravery,  loyalty,  and  all 
manly  virtues.  The  soldiers  in  their  strange  and  showy  garb  have  so 
frequently  won  distinction  upon  the  field  of  battle  that  all  their  panegyrists 
said  about  their  native  virtues  was  implicitly  believed  ;  and  on  the  faith  of 
poets  we  admired  their  pipers,  the  successors  of  the  ancient  bards,  who 
accompanied  their  melancholy  chants  on  the  harp.  In  reality,  however,  the 
Highlanders,  until  recently,  were  warlike  herdsmen,  as  the  Montenegrins, 
Mirdits,  and  Albanians  are  even  now,  always  at  enmity  with  their  neighbors. 
It  was  only  after  forts  had  been  built  at  the  mouths  of  the  valleys,  and 
military  roads  constructed  through  their  territories,  that  they  were  reduced 


178  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

to  submission.  The  members  of  each  family  were  closely  united,  and,  like 
American  Indians,  they  had  their  war  cries,  badges,  and  distinctly  patterned 
tartans.  The  people  were  thus  split  up  into  about  forty  clans,  or,  including 
the  Lowland  families,  into  about  one  hundred,  and  several  of  these  clans  con- 
sisted of  more  than  10,000  individuals.  The  principal  Highland  clans  in 
1863  were :  MacGregors,  36,000  ;  MacKenzies,  21,000  ;  MacLeans, 
16,000  ;  MacLeods,  14,000  ;  Macintoshes,  11,000  ;  MacDonalds,  10,000. 
The  members  of  each  clan,  though  sometimes  only  cousins  a  hundred  times 
removed,  all  bore  the  same  name,  and  they  fought  and  worked  together. 
The  land  was  originally  held  in  union,  being  periodically  divided  amongst 
the  clan.  The  honor  of  the  tribe  was  dear  to  every  one  of  its  individual 
members,  and  an  injury  done  to  one  amongst  them  was  avenged  by  the 
entire  community.  When  the  kings  of  Scotland  had  to  complain  of  a  High- 
land chief,  they  attacked  his  clan,  for  they  well  knew  that  every  member  of 
it  would  embrace  the  cause  of  the  chief.  There  existed  no  courts  of  justice 
in  the  Highlands,  but  blood  was  spilt  for  blood.  Various  monuments  recall 
such  acts  of  savage  vengeance,  and  as  recently  as  181 2  a  Highland  family 
set  up  seven  grinning  heads  as  a  trophy  to  commemorate  a  sevenfold 
murder  committed  by  its  ancestors.  A  cavern  on  Eigg  Island  is  strewn  with 
human  bones,  the  relics  of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  the  island,  two  hundred 
in  number,  who  are  said  to  have  been  suffocated  within  the  cavern  by  a 
neighboring  chief,  MacLeod,  in  retaliation  for  some  private  injury.20 

As  long  as  every  member  of  the  community  possessed  a  share  in  the  land, 
Scotland  was  spared  the  struggle  between  rich  and  poor.  But  by  the  close 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  poorer  members  of  the  clan,  though  still  claim- 
ing cousinship  with  their  chief,  had  lost  all  proprietary  rights  in  the  land, 
and  the  lairds,  when  remonstrated  with  by  the  clan,  responded  in  the  words 
of  the  device  adopted  by  the  earls  of  Orkney,  "  Sic  fuit,  est,  et  erit!  "  They 
were  even  then  able  to  drive  away  the  ancient  inhabitants  from  the  plots  of 
land  they  occupied,  in  order  that  they  might  transform  them  into  pasturing 
or  shooting  grounds.  Several  landlords  even  burned  down  the  cabins  of 
their  poor  "  cousins,"  thus  compelling  them  to  leave  the  country.  Between 
181 1  and  1820,  15,000  tenants  were  thus  evicted  from  the  estates  of  the 
Duchess  of  Stafford. 

Entire  villages  were  given  up  to  the  flames,  and  on  a  single  night  three 
hundred  houses  might  have  been  seen  afire.  Nearly  the  whole  population  of 
four  parishes  was  in  this  way  driven  from  its  homes.  Since  the  middle  of  the 
century  about  one  million  acres  in  the  Highlands  have  been  cleared  of  human 
beings  and  sheep,  to  be  converted  into  shooting  grounds.21  Thus,  contrary 
to  what  may  be  usually  witnessed  in  civilized  countries,  the  Highland 
valleys  are  returning  to  a  state  of  nature,  and  wild  beasts  taking  the  place 
of  domesticated  animals.  The  country  formerly  almost  bare  of  trees  has 
been  largely  planted,  and  from  Black  Mount  in  Argyleshire  to  Marr  Forest 
in  Aberdeen  there  now  extends  an  almost  unbroken  belt  of  verdure.    Already 


Scotland  of  To-Day  179 

the  shooting  grounds  cover  over  two  million  acres,  and  they  are  continually- 
extending.  Scotland  has  emphatically  become  a  sporting  country,  and  many 
a  large  estate  is  managed  as  a  shooting  ground,  that  proving  more  profitable 
to  its  proprietor  than  would  its  cultivation.  There  are  not  wanting  sports- 
men willing  to  pay  ^400  for  a  salmon  stream,  ^1000  for  the  right  of  shoot- 
ing over  a  moor,  or  ^4000  for  a  deer  park.  With  these  rents  a  salmon  may 
cost  £2>  and  a  stag  ^"40.  In  1877,  2060  shooting  grounds  in  Scotland 
were  let  for  ^6oo,ooo.22  Scotland,  even  more  than  England,  is  a  land  of 
wide  demesnes,  and  twenty-one  individuals  share  between  them  the  third 
of  the  kingdom,  seventy  the  half,  and  one  thousand  and  seven  hundred 
nine-tenths  of  it.  The  Duke  of  Sutherland  alone  owns  about  the  fifteenth 
part  of  Scotland,  including  nearly  the  whole  county  from  which  he  derives 
his  title.  Domains  of  such  vast  extent  cannot  be  properly  cultivated,  and 
heaths  and  swamps  which  would  repay  the  labor  bestowed  upon  them  by 
peasant  proprietors  are  allowed  by  their  wealthy  owners  to  remain  in  a  state 
of  nature. 

In  the  Orkneys,  a  portion  of  the  land  is  still  owned  by  odallers,  or  peasant 
proprietors  ;  but  the  Shetland  Islands  and  several  of  the  Hebrides,  includ- 
ing Lewis,  the  largest  amongst  them,  belong  to  a  single  proprietor,  who  thus 
disposes  indirectly  of  the  lives  of  the  inhabitants,  whom  he  can  compel  to 
abandon  their  homes  whenever  it  suits  his  interests.  Several  islands,  such 
as  Barra  and  Rum,  which  formerly  supported  a  considerable  population, 
have  in  this  way  become  almost  deserts  ;  and  amongst  the  inhabitants  left 
behind  there  are  even  now  many  who  live  in  a  state  of  extreme  poverty,  who 
look  upon  carrageen,  or  Iceland  moss,  as  a  luxury,  and  who  are  dependent 
upon  seaweeds  and  fish  for  their  daily  sustenance.  Owing  to  the  inferiority 
of  the  food,  dyspepsia  is  a  common  complaint,  and  certain  physicians  de- 
clare that  the  gift  of  "  second  sight,"  which  plays  so  prominent  a  part  in  the 
history  of  the  Highlanders,  is  traceable  to  a  disorder  of  the  organs  of  diges- 
tion. The  villages  of  Lewis  are  perhaps  unique  of  their  kind  in  Europe. 
The  inhabitants  gather  the  stones  embedded  in  the  peaty  soil  to  construct 
rough  concentric  walls,  filling  the  space  between  them  with  earth  and  gravel. 
A  scaffolding  made  of  old  oars  and  boughs  supports  a  roof  covered  with 
earth  and  peat,  leaving  a  wide  ledge  on  the  top  of  the  circular  wall,  upon 
which  vegetation  soon  springs  up,  and  which  becomes  the  favorite  prom- 
enade and  playground  of  children,  dogs,  and  sheep.  A  single  door  gives 
access  to  this  unshapely  abode,  within  which  a  peat  fire  is  kept  burning 
throughout  the  year,  in  order  that  the  damp  which  perpetually  penetrates 
through  the  wall  and  roof  may  evaporate.  Horses,  cows,  and  sheep,  all  of 
diminutive  stature,  owing  to  the  want  of  nourishment,  occupy  one  extremity 
of  this  den,  while  the  fowls  roost  by  the  side  of  the  human  inhabitants,  or 
perch  near  the  hole  left  for  the  escape  of  the  smoke.  To  strangers  the 
heat  and  smoke  of  these  dwellings  are  intolerable,  but  the  former  is  said 
to   favor    the    laying    of    eggs."      Such   are   the   abodes   of   most   of   the 


180  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

inhabitants  of  Lewis.  Yet  the  claims  to  comfort  have  increased  since  the 
commencement  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  a  porringer  is  no  longer 
looked  upon  as  a  veritable  curiosity. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XIII 

1  It  may  be  not  without  interest  to  note  here  the  names  of  the  twenty-nine  American 
Immortals,  for  whom  memorial  tablets  have  been  placed  in  the  Hall  of  Fame,  erected  during 
the  year  1900  on  University  Heights  in  the  city  of  New  York.  The  names  were  selected  by 
a  jury  of  ninety-seven  members,  composed  of  twenty-five  college  presidents,  twenty-six  profes- 
sors of  science  and  history,  twenty-three  publicists,  editors,  and  authors,  and  twenty-three 
justices  of  state  and  national  supreme  courts.  The  result  of  this  selection  was  as  follows, 
the  number  of  votes  cast  for  each  candidate  being  appended  : 

George  Washington  (97),  Abraham  Lincoln  (96),  Daniel  Webster  (96),  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin (94),  Ulysses  S.  Grant  (92),  John  Marshall  (91),  Thomas  Jefferson  (90),  Ralph  Waldo 
Emerson  (87),  Henry  W.  Longfellow  (85),  Robert  Fulton  (85),  Washington  Irving  (83),  Jon- 
athan Edwards  (81),  Samuel  Finley  Breese  Morse  (80),  David  G.  Farragut  (79),  Henry  Clay 
(74),  Nathaniel  Hawthorne  (73),  George  Peabody  (72),  Robert  E.  Lee  (69),  Peter  Cooper 
(69),  Horace  Mann  (67),  Eli  Whitney  (67),  John  James  Audubon  (67),  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  (66),  James  Kent  (65),  Joseph  Story  (64),  John  Adams  (61),  William  Ellery  Chan- 
ning  (58),  Gilbert  Stuart  (52),  Asa  Gray  (51), 

Of  the  twenty-nine  names  given  above,  the  bearers  of  seven  were  of  Scottish  descent 
in  the  male  line — Webster,  Grant,  Fulton,  Irving,  Cooper,  Stuart,  and  Gray  ;  Marshall  was 
Welsh  and  Scotch ;  Morse,  English  and  Scotch  ;  Jefferson,  Welsh,  English,  and  Scotch ; 
Farragut,  Spanish ;  Audubon,  French  and  Spanish :  Clay,  uncertain ;  Edwards,  Welsh ; 
Adams,  English  and  Welsh  ;  and  the  remaining  fourteen  English.  Of  the  other  names  voted 
on  by  the  jury,  the  fifteen  receiving  the  most  votes  under  the  number  necessary  to  elect  (fifty- 
one)  were  as  follows,  the  names  of  those  of  Scottish  descent  (six  out  of  fifteen)  being  printed 
in  italics:  John  C.  Calhoun  (49),  Andrew  Jackson  (49),  John  Quincy  Adams  (48),  William 
Cullen  Bryant  (48),  James  Madison  (48),  Rufus  Choate  (47),  Mark  Hopkins  (47),  Elias  Howe 
(47),  Horace  Greeley  (45),  Joseph  Henry  (44),  James  B.  Eads  (42),  Benjamin  Rush  (42),  John 
Lothrop  Motley  (41),  Patrick  Henry  (39),  Edgar  Allan  Poe  (37). 

Thus  of  the  forty-four  Americans  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes,  sixteen  were  of 
Scottish  origin  in  whole  or  part,  thirteen  being  of  Scottish  descent  in  the  male  line. 

8  The  ancient  Celto-Scottish  kingdom  of  Strathclyde,  which,  as  late  as  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury, extended  from  the  Clyde  to  the  river  Ribble,  in  Lancashire,  England,  and  formed  part 
of  the  domain  of  Malcolm  Canmore,  King  of  the  Scots  in  the  time  of  William  the  Conqueror, 
was  the  ancestral  home,  not  only  of  the  Scotch-Irish  and  many  of  the  heroes  of  Scotland, 
but  also  of  the  families  of  Washington,  Jackson,  and  Taylor,  which  have  furnished  three 
presidents  to  the  United  States. 

3  The  reader  will  of  course  remark  that  of  the  four  kingdoms — Dalriadic  Irish,  Pictish, 
British  of  Strathclyde,  and  English  of  Bernica — the  two  latter  realms  extended  far  south  be- 
yond the  line  of  modern  Scotland.  This  fact  had  remarkable  consequences  in  Scottish 
history.  Otherwise  the  existence  of  these  four  kingdoms  mainly  interests  us  as  showing  the 
nature  of  the  races — Pictish,  British,  Irish,  and  English — who  were,  then,  the  inhabitants  of 
various  parts  of  Scotland,  leaving,  doubtless,  their  strain  of  blood  in  the  population.  A 
Dumfries,  Ayr,  Renfrew,  Lanark,  or  Peebles  man,  as  a  dweller  in  Strathclyde,  has  some 
chance  of  remote  British  (Brython)  ancestors  in  his  pedigree  ;  a  Selkirk,  Roxburgh,  Berwick- 
shire, or  Lothian  man  is  probably  for  the  most  part  of  English  blood  ;  an  Argyleshire  man  is 
or  may  be  descended  from  an  Irish  Scot  or  Dalriad  ;  the  northern  shires  are  partly  Pictish, 
as  also  is  Galloway,  always  allowing  for  the  perpetual  mixture  of  races  in  really  historical  and 
in  prehistoric  times. — Andrew  Lang,  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  31. 


Scotland  of  To-Day  181 

4  See  Strabo,  book  i.,  ch.  iv. ;  book  ii.,  ch.  i.,  v.;  book  iv.,  ch.  v. 

6  If  a  line  is  drawn  from  a  point  on  the  eastern  bank  of  Loch  Lomond,  somewhat  south 
of  Ben  Lomond,  following  in  the  main  the  line  of  the  Grampians,  and  crossing  the  Forth  at 
Aberfoil,  the  Teith  at  Callander,  the  Almond  at  Crieff,  the  Tay  at  Dunkeld,  the  Ericht  at 
Blairgowrie,  and  proceeding  through  the  hills  of  Brae  Angus  till  it  reaches  the  great  range  of 
the  Mounth,  then  crossing  the  Dee  at  Ballater,  the  Spey  at  Lower  Craigellachie,  till  it  reaches 
the  Moray  Firth  at  Nairn — this  forms  what  was  called  the  Highland  Line  and  separated  the 
Celtic  from  the  Teutonic-speaking  people.  Within  this  line,  with  the  exception  of  the  county 
of  Caithness,  which  belongs  to  the  Teutonic  division,  the  Gaelic  language  forms  the  vernacu- 
lar of  the  inhabitants. — Celtic  Scotland,  ii.,  453. 

The  Scottish  Highlands  are  sometimes  spoken  of  so  as  to  convey  the  impression  that 
there  is  a  clearly  defined  mountain  district,  contrasted  with  "  the  Lowlands,"  as  though  the 
latter  were  a  vast  plain.  There  could  hardly  be  a  greater  mistake.  From  Kirkcudbright  to 
Caithness,  there  is  hardly  a  county  without  its  hill  ranges  ;  and  without  leaving  the  Southern 
district,  the  lover  of  mountain  beauty  will  find  noble  heights  and  solitary  glens,  with  many 
a  rippling  burn  from  tarns  among  the  hills. — Samuel  G.  Green,  Scottish  Pictures,  p.  117. 

6  This  description  of  the  present  inhabitants  of  the  Lowlands  and  Highlands  of  Scotland 
is  chiefly  taken  from  Elisee  Reclus's  La  Terre,  Appleton's  American  edition,  1883.  Reclus 
bases  on  Kemble,  Saxons  in  England ;  Latham,  Ethnology  of  the  British  Isles  ;  Murray, 
in  Philological  Society's  Transactions,  1873,  etc- 

7  Forbes  ;  Hugh  Miller,  First  Impressions  of  England  and  the  English. 

8  Demogeot  and  Montucci,  De  V  enseignement  superieur  en  Angleterre  et  en  Ecosse. 

9  Just  as  Highland  scenery  has  come  to  be  reckoned  peculiarly  Scottish  scenery,  not 
only  by  Englishmen  and  foreigners,  but  even  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  Lowlands  themselves, 
to  whom  its  lakes  and  glens,  its  stony  precipices  and  wind-swept  isles  are  as  familiar  and  dear 
as  they  were  once  dreaded  and  disliked  ;  so  in  some  important  aspects,  of  which  war  is  per- 
haps the  chief,  the  Highlander  has  become  the  typical  Scot,  and  the  Lowlander,  who  mainly 
shaped  the  fortunes  of  the  nation  and  gave  it  its  place  in  history,  has  acquiesced  in  the  repre- 
sentation and  is  proud  of  the  disguise.  No  harm  can  follow  from  this  if  we  only  keep  stead- 
ily in  view  the  true  ethnological  condition  of  Scotland,  and  realize  the  fact  that  while  in 
Southern  Britain  the  Saxons  and  Angles  almost  wholly  superseded  the  original  Cymric  pop- 
ulation, there  is  no  evidence  that  a  similar  act  ever  took  place  in  North  Britain  ;  there  is  no 
record  of  a  Teutonic  settlement  except  in  the  southeast,  and  there  is  no  probability  that  the 
Picts  between  Drumalban  and  the  eastern  sea,  or  even  the  Cymry  of  Strathclyde,  though 
they  lost  their  language  and  their  independence,  were  ever  expelled  from  their  original  seats, 
or  transformed  in  character  by  any  extraordinary  infusion  of  a  Teutonic  element. — J.  M. 
Ross,  Scottish  History  and  Literature ,  p.  15. 

10  Wilson's  Prehistoric  Annals  of  Scotland. 

11  Jameson's  History  of  the  Culdees. 

18  Forbes  Leslie,  Early  Races  of  Scotland. 

13  Mercey,  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  Sept.,  1838. 

14  Hugh  Miller,  Footprints  of  the  Creator. 

15  Historical  Description  of  Zetland. 

16  E.  G.  Ravenstein,  On  the  Celtic  Languages  in  the  British  Isles, 

17  Forbes  Leslie,  Early  Races  of  Scotland. 

18  Dr.  Johnson,  Tour  in  the  Western  Hebrides. 

19  Anderson  Smith,  Lewisiana. 

80  Hugh  Miller,  Cruise  of  the  "Betsey" 

81  Hugh  Miller,  Sutherland  as  it  Was  and  Is. 
88  Official  Journal,  Nov.  16,  1877. 

83  Anderson  Smith,  Lewisiana. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  CALEDONIANS,  OR  PICTS 

OF  the  inhabitants  of  Britain  in  prehistoric  times  we  can  learn  but 
little,  and  that  only  in  the  most  general  way.  While  the  literature  on 
the  subject  is  quite  extensive,  and,  so  far  as  it  records  the  results  of  archaeo- 
logical investigation,  not  without  considerable  value,  yet  the  data  thus  far 
made  available  are  so  fragmentary  as  to  form  a  basis  for  hardly  anything  more 
than  a  probable  supposition  as  to  who  they  were  and  whence  they  came.1 
The  following  summary  by  one  of  the  recent  English  authorities 3  gives  us  a 
hint  of  the  progress  thus  far  made  in  this  line  of  inquiry  : 

From  the  bones  which  have  been  taken  from  the  tombs,  and  from  the 
ancient  flint-mines  uncovered  in  Sussex  and  Norfolk,  the  anatomists  have 
concluded  that  the  Neolithic  Britons  were  not  unlike  the  modern  Eskimo. 
They  were  short  and  slight,  with  muscles  too  much  developed  for  their 
slender  and  ill-nurtured  bones  ;  and  there  is  that  marked  disproportion  be- 
tween the  size  of  the  men  and  women,  which  indicates  a  hard  and  miserable 
life,  where  the  weakest  are  overworked  and  constantly  stinted  of  their  food. 
The  face  must  have  been  of  an  oval  shape,  with  mild  and  regular  fea- 
tures :  the  skulls,  though  bulky  in  some  instances,  were  generally  of  a  long 
and  narrow  shape,  depressed  sometimes  at  the  crown  and  marked  with  a 
prominent  ridge,  "  like  the  keel  of  a  boat  reversed."8     .     .     . 

The  oldest  races  were  in  apre-metallic  stage,  when  bronze  was  introduced 
by  a  new  nation,  sometimes  identified  with  the  oldest  Celts,  but  now  more 
generally  attributed  to  the  Finnish  or  Ugrian  stock.  When  the  Celts  arrived 
in  their  turn,  they  may  have  brought  in  the  knowledge  of  iron  and  silver  ; 
the  Continental  Celts  are  known  to  have  used  iron  broad-swords  at  the  battle 
of  the  Anio  in  the  fourth  century  before  Christ,  and  iron  was  certainly 
worked  in  Sussex  by  the  Britons  of  Julius  Caesar's  time ;  but  as  no  objects 
of  iron  have  been  recovered  from  our  Celtic  tumuli,  except  in  some  instances 
of  a  doubtful  date,  it  will  be  safer  to  assume  that  the  British  Celts  belonged 
to  the  later  Bronze  Age  as  well  as  to  the  Age  of  Iron.4 

With  reference  to  the  earliest  population  of  Scotland,  the  following 
hypothesis  given  by  Samuel  Laing  in  his  work  on  Prehistoric  Remains  of 
Caithness  may  be  taken  as  a  fairly  comprehensive  statement  : 

Our  population  contains  three  distinct  ethnological  elements  :  I.  Xan- 
thochroi  brachycephali  (the  fair,  broad-headed  type)  ;  II.  Xanthochroi 
dolichocephali  (the  fair,  long-headed  type);  III.  Melanchroi  (the  dark  type). 
In  Caesar's  time,  and  for  an  indefinitely  long  period,  Gaul  contained  the  first 
and  third  of  these  elements,  and  the  shores  of  the  Baltic  presented  the 
second.  In  other  words,  the  ethnological  elements  of  the  Hiberno-British 
islands  are  identical  with  those  of  the  nearest  adjacent  parts  of  the  continent 
of  Europe,  at  the  earliest  period  when  a  good  observer  noted  the  characters 
of  their  population. 

182 


The  Caledonians,  or  Picts  183 

Dr.  Thurnam  has  adduced  many  good  reasons  for  believing  that  the 
"  Belgic  "  element  intruded  upon  a  pre-existing  dolichocephalic  '  Iberian  " 
population  ;  but  I  think  it  probable  that  this  element  hardly  reached 
Ireland  at  all,  and  extended  but  little  into  Scotland.  However,  if  this  were 
the  case,  and  no  other  elements  entered  into  the  population,  the  tall,  fair, 
red-haired  and  blue-eyed  dolichocephalia,  who  are,  and  appear  always  to 
have  been,  so  numerous  among  the  Irish  and  Scotch,  could  not  be  accounted 
for. 

But  their  existence  becomes  intelligible  at  once,  if  we  suppose  that  long 
before  the  well-known  Norse  and  Danish  invasions  a  stream  of  Scandinavi- 
ans had  set  into  Scotland  and  Ireland,  and  formed  a  large  part  of  our  primi- 
tive population.  And  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  admitting  this  hypothesis 
when  we  recollect  that  the  Orkneys  and  the  Hebrides  have  been,  in  compara- 
tively late  historical  times,  Norwegian  possessions.  ...  In  another 
fashion,  the  fair  and  broad-headed  "  Belgae  "  intruded  into  the  British  area  ; 
but  meeting  with  a  large  dolichocephalic  population,  which  at  subsequent 
times  was  vastly  reinforced  by  Anglo-Saxon,  Norse,  and  Danish  invasions, 
this  type  has  been  almost  wiped  out  of  the  British  population,  which  is,  in  the 
main,  composed  of  fair  dolichocephalia  and  dark  dolichocephalia.  .  .  . 
But  language  has  in  no  respect  followed  these  physical  changes.  The  fair 
dolichocephali  and  fair  brachycephali  of  Germany,  Scandinavia,  and  Eng- 
land speak  Teutonic  dialects  ;  while  those  of  France  have  a  substantially 
Latin  speech  ;  and  the  majority  of  those  of  Scotland,  and,  within  historic 
times,  all  those  of  Ireland,  spoke  Celtic  tongues.  As  to  the  Melanchroi, 
some  speak  Celtic,  some  Latin,  some  Teutonic  dialects  ;  while  others,  like  the 
Basques  (so  far  as  they  come  under  this  category)  have  a  language  of  their 
own. 

So  far  as  any  definite  conclusions  can  be  deduced  from  the  work  of  the 
ethnologists  and  archaeologists,  it  appears  that  the  first  Celtic  invaders  to 
enter  Scotland  (whether  at  a  period  simultaneous  with  or  prior  or  subse- 
quent to  the  advent  of  the  Stone-Age  Britons  in  that  part  of  the  island  can- 
not perhaps  be  definitely  told)  were  the  Gaels,  or  Goidels,  who  had  crossed 
over  into  Britain  from  Gaul,  first  settling  on  those  portions  of  the  coast  most 
easy  of  access  from  the  points  of  embarkation,  thence  pushing  into  the  interior, 
and  gradually  spreading  to  the  west  and  north.  In  their  progress  they  must 
have  encountered  and,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  superseded  the  aborigines 
—  the  Britons  of  the  Stone  Age.  This  may  have  been  done  by  exterminating 
them,  by  driving  them  off  towards  the  west,  or  by  assimilating  them  with 
themselves.  Probably  all  of  these  methods  of  race  extinction  were 
brought  into  operation.  In  such  a  primitive  age,  these  tribes,  native 
and  foreign,  cannot  be  conceived  to  have  been  other  than  loosely  organized 
hordes  of  wandering  savages,  preying  upon  one  another,  without  fixed  habi- 
tations, and  to  whom  all  weaker  strangers  were  foredoomed  enemies.  The 
Celts,  bringing  with  them  from  the  Continent  the  knowledge  of  bronze  and 
iron,  would  have  considerable  advantage  in  battle  over  the  aborigines,  who 
had  no  more  effective  weapons  than  sharpened  stones.  In  those  days,  also, 
it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  country  was  so  sparsely  populated  that 
for  centuries  after  the  first  coming  of  the  Gaels,  there  would  be  room  enough 


184  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

on  the  island  for  both  races  ;  and  many  bodies  of  the  aborigines  no  doubt 
remained  unmolested  long  after  the  extinction  of  their  race  had  been  in  part 
accomplished.5  As  fresh  waves  of  invasion  swept  over  the  eastern  shores, 
the  Celts  first  coming  would  be  apt  to  be  driven  farther  and  farther  inland  from 
the  coast,  and  would  in  turn  displace  the  natives  —  who,  to  escape  death  or 
slavery,  would  be  obliged  to  push  farther  westward  and  northward.  Some 
of  these  (supposed)  aborigines,  however,  seem  to  have  made  a  successful 
stand  against  the  encroachments  of  the  newcomers,  and  among  them  we  find 
two  tribes  who  were  identified  with  portions  of  Scotland  down  to  a  date 
long  after  the  beginning  of  the  historic  era.  These  were  the  Novantae  and 
Selgovae  mentioned  by  Ptolemy,  whose  territory  in  his  time  (the  early  part 
of  the  second  century)  embraced  the  country  west  of  the  river  Nith  and 
south  of  the  Ayr  —  Kirkcudbrightshire  and  Galloway  —  and  possibly,  also, 
the  peninsula  of  Kintyre,  in  Argyle.  Toward  the  end  of  the  Roman  occupa- 
tion they  seem  to  have  coalesced,  and  became  known  as  the  Attecotti,  a 
"  fierce  and  warlike  tribe,"  who  gave  the  Romans  a  great  deal  of  trouble. 
They  afterwards  appear  in  history  as  the  Galloway  Picts,  and  seem  to  have 
remained  a  distinct  people  under  that  name  down  to  a  comparatively  recent 
date/ 

The  Gaelic  Celts  of  the  first  migrations  were  in  time  followed  by  other 
bodies  of  their  own  tribesmen,  and  later  by  large  incursions  of  invaders  of 
a  kindred  race — the  Cymric  Celts.7  The  first  comers,  accordingly,  seem  to 
have  been  pushed  on  to  the  west  and  north,  overrunning  the  west  of  Eng- 
land and  Wales,  entering  Scotland,  and  some  of  them,  more  venturesome 
than  others,  crossing  over  into  Northern  Ireland,  and  making  that  country 
their  own.8  In  the  course  of  time,  various  tribes  of  the  Cymric  Celts  ac- 
quired the  most  of  Southern  Britain  and  not  a  small  portion  of  Scotland, 
spreading  over  the  island  in  considerable  numbers,  and  leaving  few  parts 
unoccupied  save  the  hills  and  highlands  of  Scotland,  which  became  the 
final  retreat  and  stronghold  of  their  Gaelic  cousins." 

Caesar  was  the  first  observer  who  has  left  any  record  of  these  early  Cym- 
ro-Celtic  Britons.  Of  their  origin  and  manner  of  living  he  speaks  as  fol- 
lows (£>e  Bello  Gallico,  book  v.,  ch.  xii.,  xiv.)  : 

The  interior  portion  of  Britain  is  inhabited  by  those  of  whom  they  say 
that  it  is  handed  down  by  tradition  that  they  were  born  in  the  island  itself  ; 
the  maritime  portion  by  those  who  had  passed  over  from  the  country  of  the 
Belgae  for  the  purpose  of  plunder  and  making  war  ;  almost  all  of  whom  are 
called  by  the  names  of  those  states  from  which  being  sprung  they  went 
thither,  and  having  waged  war,  continued  there  and  began  to  cultivate  the 
lands.  The  number  of  the  people  is  countless,  and  their  buildings  exceed- 
ingly numerous,  for  the  most  part  very  like  those  of  the  Gauls  ;  the  number 
of  cattle  is  great.  They  use  either  brass  or  iron  rings,  determined  at  a  cer- 
tain weight,  as  their  money.  Tin  is  produced  in  the  midland  regions  ;  in  the 
maritime,  iron  ;  but  the  quantity  of  it  is  small  ;  they  employ  brass,  which  is 
imported.  There,  as  in  Gaul,  is  timber  of  every  description  except  beech 
and  fir.     They  do  not  regard  it  lawful  to  eat  the  hare,  and  the  cock,  and  the 


The  Caledonians,  or  Picts  185 

goose  ;  they,  however,  breed  them  for  amusement  and  pleasure.     The  cli- 
mate is  more  temperate  than  in  Gaul,  the  colds  being  less  severe. 

The  most  civilized  of  all  these  nations  are  they  who  inhabit  Kent,  which 
is  entirely  a  maritime  district,  nor  do  they  differ  much  from  the  Gallic  cus- 
toms. Most  of  the  island  inhabitants  do  not  sow  corn,  but  live  on  milk  and 
flesh,  and  are  clad  with  skins.  All  the  Britons,  indeed,  dye  themselves  with 
woad,  which  occasions  a  bluish  color,  and  thereby  have  a  more  terrible  ap- 
pearance in  fight.  They  wear  their  hair  long,  and  have  every  part  of  their 
body  shaved  except  their  head  and  upper  lip.  Ten  and  even  twelve  have 
wives  common  to  them,  and  particularly  brothers  among  brothers,  and  par- 
ents among  their  children  ;  but  if  there  be  any  issue  by  their  wives,  they  are 
reputed  to  be  the  children  of  those  by  whom  respectively  each  was  first 
espoused  when  a  virgin. 

A  description  of  the  several  peoples  inhabiting  Britain  at  this  time,  or 
shortly  after,  is  found  in  Ptolemy's  Geography,  written  about  a.d.  121.  Ac- 
cording to  Professor  Rhys's  interpretation  of  Ptolemy,  most  of  the  country 
between  the  Humber  and  Mersey  and  the  Caledonian  Forest  belonged  to  a 
tribe  or  confederation  known  as  the  Brigantes.  The  Novantae  and  Selgovae, 
occupying  the  district  on  the  Solway  west  of  the  Nith,  appear,  however,  to 
have  been  independent  of  them  ;  as  were  also  the  Parisi,  between  the  Humber 
and  the  Tees.  The  Otadini  (occupying  a  portion  of  Lothian  and  the  coast 
down  to  the  southern  Wall)  and  the  northern  Damnonii  (inhabiting  the  dis- 
trict north  of  the  Novantae,  the  Selgovae,  and  the  Otadini,  and  to  a  consid- 
erable distance  beyond  the  Forth  and  Clyde — the  present  counties  of  Ayr, 
Renfrew,  Lanark,  Dumbarton,  Stirling,  and  the  western  half  of  Fife)  were 
either  distinct  peoples  subject  to  the  Brigantes,  or  included  in  the  tribes  that 
went  under  that  name.10 

Aside  from  the  Novantae  and  Selgovae,  these  various  tribes  are  now  gen- 
erally supposed  to  have  belonged  to  the  Cymric  Celts,  being  part  of  the  same 
people  who,  since  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar,  have  been  popularly  known  as 
"  Britons,"  at  the  present  day  sometimes  called  "  Brythons,"  to  distinguish 
them  from  the  "Goidels,"  or  Gaelic  Celts  of  Britain.  Freeman  includes  with 
the  Brythons  nearly  all  the  tribes  of  North  Britain,  a  classification  which 
seems  entirely  too  comprehensive  ;  he  says  of  the  latter  : 

On  the  whole,  it  is  most  likely  that  they  belonged  to  the  same  branch  of 
the  Celtic  race  as  the  southern  Britons,  and  that  they  differed  from  them 
chiefly  as  the  unsubdued  part  of  any  race  differs  from  the  part  which  is 
brought  into  subjection.  In  the  later  days  of  the  Roman  power  in  Britain, 
these  northern  tribes,  under  the  name  of  Picts,  appear  as  dangerous  invaders 
of  the  Roman  province,  invaders  whose  inroads  were  sometimes  pushed 
even  into  its  southern  regions.11 

The  connection  of  these  different  divisions  of  the  early  races  with  our 
subject  is  quite  important,  for,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  that  portion  of  Brit- 
ain inhabited  for  so  long  a  time  by  the  Novantae,  the  Selgovae,  the  Otadini, 
the  Damnonii,  the  Brigantes,  and  the  Galloway  Picts  of  later  writers  is  the 


1 86  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

part  from  which  Ireland  received  the  largest  proportion  of  her  Scottish 
immigrants." 

Up  to  the  close  of  the  tenth  century,  the  name  "  Scotland  "  was  applied 
solely  to  the  Hibernian  island.  The  present  Scotland  was  then  known  as 
Caledonia,  or  by  its  ancient  Gaelic  name  of  Alban,  or  Albania.  Before  that 
period,  and,  indeed,  for  some  time  afterwards,  its  boundaries  did  not  extend 
south  of  the  Forth  and  Clyde.  That  part  of  the  country  south  of  these 
estuaries  was  included  in  the  Roman  province,  and  its  inhabitants  for  the 
most  part  were  Romanized  Britons.  During  their  wars  with  the  Brigantes  in 
the  first  century,  the  Romans  learned  of  a  people  to  the  north  of  that  nation, 
whom  they  termed  Caledonian  Britons.  Lucan  first  mentions  them  a.d.  65  : 
"  Unda  Caledonios  fallit  turbata  Britannos."  They  are  alluded  to  by  Taci- 
tus some  fifteen  years  later  {Life  of  Agricola,  c.  xi.),  who  says  : 

Who  were  the  first  inhabitants  of  Britain,  whether  indigenous  or  immi- 
grants, is  a  question  involved  in  the  obscurity  usual  among  barbarians. 
Their  temperament  of  body  is  various,  whence  deductions  are  formed  of 
their  different  origin.  Thus,  the  ruddy  hair  and  large  limbs  of  the  Caledo- 
nians point  out  a  German  derivation.13  The  swarthy  complexion  and  curled 
hair  of  the  Silures,  together  with  their  situation  opposite  to  Spain,  render  it 
probable  that  a  colony  of  the  ancient  Iberi  possessed  themselves  of  that  ter- 
ritory. They  who  are  nearest  Gaul  resemble  the  inhabitants  of  that  country; 
whether  from  the  duration  of  hereditary  influence,  or  whether  it  be  that 
when  lands  jut  forward  in  opposite  directions,  climate  gives  the  same  condi- 
tion of  body  to  the  inhabitants  of  both.  On  a  general  survey,  however,  it 
appears  probable  that  the  Gauls  originally  took  possession  on  the  neighbor- 
ing coast.  The  sacred  rites  and  superstitions  of  these  people  are  discernible 
among  the  Britons.  The  languages  of  the  two  nations  do  not  greatly  differ. 
The  same  audacity  in  provoking  danger,  and  irresolution  in  facing  it  when 
present,  is  observable  in  both.  The  Britons,  however,  display  more  ferocity, 
not  being  yet  softened  by  a  long  peace  ;  for  it  appears  from  history  that  the 
Gauls  were  once  renowned  in  war,  till,  losing  their  valor  with  their  liberty, 
languor  and  indolence  entered  among  them.  The  same  change  has  also 
taken  place  among  those  of  the  Britons  who  have  been  long  subdued  ;  but 
the  rest  continue  such  as  the  Gauls  formerly  were. 

Tacitus's  account  of  the  campaigns  carried  on  against  the  Caledonians  by 
Agricola  sufficiently  illustrates  the  spirit  and  valor  of  these  early  Scotch- 
men. Though  often  defeated  in  battle,  they  were  never  subdued  ;  and  when 
unable  to  withstand  the  charges  of  the  Roman  legions  in  the  open,  they  fell 
back  to  their  retreats  in  forest  and  mountains,  where  they  were  able  to  hold 
the  Romans  at  bay. 

Dion  Cassius,  the  historian  (about  a.d.  155-230),  brings  them  to  our  at- 
tention again,  when  in  the  year  201  we  find  the  Caledonians  joined  with  the 
Maeatae  in  preparation  for  an  attack  on  the  Roman  province.  This  was 
postponed,  however,  by  the  action  of  the  Roman  Governor,  Virius  Lupus, 
who  purchased  peace  at  a  great  price  from  the  Maeatae.  Dion,  writing  before 
the  year  230,  gives  the  following  description  of  these  Maeatae,  which,  while  in 
some  respects  evidently  founded  upon  fable,  yet  as  a  whole  corresponds 


The  Caledonians,  or  Picts  187 

with  like  accounts  which  have  come  down  to  us  of  the  neighboring  tribes 

(1.  lxxvi.,  ch.  xii.)  : 

Of  the  Britons,  the  two  most  ample  nations  are  the  Caledonians  and 
the  Maeatae  ;  for  the  names  of  the  rest  refer  for  the  most  part  to  these.  The 
Maeatae  inhabit  near  the  very  wall  which  divides  the  island  in  two  parts  ;  the 
Caledonians  are  after  those.  Each  of  them  inhabits  mountains,  very  rugged, 
and  wanting  water,  also  desert  fields  full  of  marshes  ;  they  have  neither 
castles  nor  cities,  nor  dwell  in  any  ;  they  live  on  milk,  and  by  hunting,  and 
maintain  themselves  by  the  fruits  of  trees  :  for  fishes,  of  which  there  is  a  very 
great  and  numberless  quantity,  they  never  taste  ;  they  dwell  naked  in  tents, 
and  without  shoes  ;  they  use  wives  in  common,  and  whatever  is  born  to  them 
they  bring  up.14  In  the  popular  state  they  are  governed  as  for  the  most  part ; 
they  rob  on  the  highway  most  willingly  ;  they  war  in  chariots  ;  horses  they 
have,  small  and  fleet ;  their  infantry,  also,  are  as  well  most  swift  at  running 
as  most  brave  in  pitched  battle.  Their  arms  are  a  shield  and  a  short  spear, 
in  the  upper  part  whereof  is  an  apple  of  brass,  that  while  it  is  shaken  it  may 
terrify  the  enemies  with  sound  ;  they  have  likewise  daggers  ;  they  are  able 
to  bear  hunger,  cold,  and  all  afflictions  ;  for  they  merge  themselves  in 
marshes,  and  there  remain  many  days  having  only  their  heads  out  of  water  ; 
and  in  woods  are  nourished  by  the  barks  and  roots  of  trees.  But  a  certain 
kind  of  food  they  prepare  for  all  occasions,  of  which  if  they  take  as  much 
as  the  size  of  a  single  bean,  they  are  in  nowise  ever  wont  to  hunger  or  thirst. 

The  nation  of  the  Maeatae  {i.e.,  "  Men  of  the  Midlands  ")  embraced  those 
tribes  immediately  north  of  the  Roman  wall  between  the  Forth  and  the 
Clyde,  while  the  Caledonians  were  to  the  north  and  east.  This  division  of 
the  people  into  two  nations  or  septs  seems  to  have  continued  for  some  cen- 
turies. In  380,  they  were  known  as  the  Dicalidones  and  the  Vecturiones. 
By  Bede  they  appear  to  have  been  distinguished  as  the  Northern  Picts  and 
the  Southern  Picts.16 

In  the  year  208,  Severus  penetrated  into  their  country  as  far  as  the 
river  Tay.  By  great  exertions  in  clearing  the  country  of  forests  and  under- 
growth, and  the  construction  of  roads  and  bridges,  he  acquired  a  limited 
district  beyond  that  Wall  of  Antoninus  which  he  had  reconstructed  between 
the  Clyde  and  the  Forth.  This  territory  the  Romans  afterwards  garrisoned, 
and  retained  for  a  few  years.  Severus  is  said  to  have  fought  no  battles, 
on  this  march,  but  his  loss  in  men  was  very  great,  owing  to  the  destructive 
guerilla  warfare  carried  on  by  the  natives  during  the  progress  of  the  work 
of  clearing.  In  211,  the  Maeatae  and  Caledonians  prepared  again  for  an 
attack  on  the  Romans.  The  death  of  Severus  in  that  year  preventing  his 
conduct  of  the  operations  against  them,  his  son  and  successor  was  forced  to 
make  peace  with  these  tribes  on  terms  which  it  would  seem  eventually  in- 
volved the  withdrawal  of  the  Roman  garrisons  to  the  south  of  the  Wall. 

After  this  we  learn  nothing  more  of  the  Caledonians  from  the  Roman 
writers  until  near  the  beginning  of  the  following  century,  when  they  are 
brought  to  our  attention  again  under  a  new  name,  and  one  by  which  the 
early  inhabitants  of  Scotland  have  become  best  known  in  history.  Eumenius, 
the  panegyrist,  in  his  oration  to  Constantius  Chlorus  delivered  at  Autun,  in 


1 88  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Gaul,  a.d.  296,  on  the  occasion  of  the  victory  of  the  latter  over  Allectus, 
compares  the  victor  with  the  former  leaders  who  had  fought  against  the 
Britons,  and  adds  :  "  The  nation  Caesar  attacked  was  then  rude,  and  the 
Britons,  used  only  to  the  Picts  and  Hibernians, — enemies  then  half  naked, — 
easily  yielded  to  the  Roman  arms  and  ensigns."  At  the  same  place  some 
years  later  (309-10)  Eumenius  pronounced  a  second  panegyric  on  Constan- 
tius  Chlorus,  before  Constantine,  the  son  of  Constantius,  in  which  he  said  : 
"  The  day  would  fail  sooner  than  my  oration  were  I  to  run  over  all  the  actions 
of  thy  father,  even  with  this  brevity.  His  last  expedition  did  not  seek  for 
British  trophies  (as  is  vulgarly  believed),  but,  the  gods  now  calling  him,  he 
came  to  the  secret  bounds  of  the  earth.  For  neither  did  he  by  so  many  and 
such  actions,  I  do  not  say  the  woods  and  marshes  of  the  Caledonians  and  other 
Picts,  but  not  Hibernia  [Scotland  ?],  near  at  hand,  nor  farthest  Thule,"  etc. 

These,  and  similar  brief  allusions  on  the  part  of  later  writers,  are  all 
that  we  get  from  the  pages  of  early  history  concerning  a  subject  which, 
towards  the  close  of  the  last  century,  gave  rise  to  the  famous  Pictish  Contro- 
versy, a  dispute  that  was  carried  on  in  Scotland  for  many  years,  and  with 
extreme  bitterness  on  both  sides,  but  which  did  not  result  in  adding  much 
information  to  that  imparted  by  Eumenius  in  the  passage  quoted  above  : 
namely,  that  the  Caledonians  were  Picts.16  For  a  full  consideration  of 
these  discussions,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  works  of  Pinkerton,  Ritson, 
Chalmers,  Prichard,  Grant,  Betham,  and  others.  While  we  cannot  but  agree 
with  Mr.  Hill  Burton  in  concluding  that  the  labor  of  those  writers  has  been 
without  avail,  and  are  entirely  willing  to  "  content  ourselves  with  the  old 
and  rather  obvious  notion  that  by  Picti  the  Romans  merely  meant  painted 
people,17  without  any  consideration  about  their  race,  language,  or  other 
ethnical  specialties,"  yet  the  efforts  of  our  modern  workers  in  the  same  field 
have  been  more  fruitful  of  results,  so  far  as  the  ethnology  of  these  painted 
people  is  concerned.  It  is  now  generally  believed  that  they  were  primarily 
descended  from  the  aborigines  of  Britain,  who  were  non-Celtic  and  non- 
Aryan.  Later,  in  accordance  with  the  usually  adopted  view  as  to  the  priority 
of  the  Gaelic  emigration  to  Britain,  its  subsequent  movement  northward,  and 
the  facility  with  which  the  Picts  afterwards  coalesced  with  the  Scots,  they 
must  also  have  become  to  a  large  extent  Gaelic.  Yet,  the  presence  of  known 
Cymric  peoples  in  the  Pictish  territories  in  Roman  times, — one  instance 
being  that  of  the  northern  Damnonii,  who  were  cut  off  from  their  own  nation 
by  the  building  of  the  first  Wall, — together  with  the  many  proofs  of  Brythonic 
occupation  shown  in  the  topographical  nomenclature  of  the  northern  Low- 
lands, lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that,  so  far  as  the  Southern  Picts  were  con- 
cerned, their  peculiar  characteristics  had  to  a  considerable  extent  been 
modified  by  the  infusion  of  Cymric  elements.  In  other  words,  the  Northern 
Picts  seem  to  have  been  largely  of  the  aboriginal  type,  more  or  less  modified 
by  fusion  with  the  Gaelic,  while  those  of  the  south  were  a  mixed  Gaelic, 
Cymric,  and  aboriginal  people.     This  view  harmonizes  with  the  distinction 


The  Caledonians,  or  Picts  189 

nearly  always  made  by  the  early  historians  in  their  references  to  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Caledonia — as  instanced  by  the  Maeatae  and  Caledonians  of  Dion 
Cassius,  the  Caledonians  and  "  other  Picts  "  of  Eumenius,  the  Dicalidones 
and  Vecturiones  of  Ammianus,  and,  somewhat  later,  the  Northern  and 
Southern  Picts  of  Bede.18 

The  Picts  were  converted  to  Christianity  by  the  preaching  of  St.  Columba 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  sixth  century  (after  a.d.  565)  ;  and  they  were  ruled 
over  by  a  line  of  Pictish  kings  down  to  the  year  842,  when  Kenneth  MacAlpin, 
king  of  the  Dalriada  Scots,  brought  them  under  subjection,  and  united  the 
two  kingdoms  under  one  crown. 

The  chief  original  sources  of  information  about  the  Pictish  kingdom  and 
its  rulers  are  the  Ulster  Annals,  the  Annals  of  Tighernac,  and  the  Pictish 
Chronicle,  of  which  the  best  editions  are  those  contained  in  Mr.  William  F. 
Skene's  Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots.  English  translations  of  portions 
of  the  first  two  of  these  have  been  printed  in  the  Collectanea  de  Rebus 
Albanicis  of  the  Iona  Club  (see  Appendix  O). 

The  names  of  the  Pictish  kings  from  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
with  the  dates  of  the  commencement  of  their  reigns,  duration  of  same,  and 
dates  of  death,  are  as  follows  : 

About  a.d.  406,  Drust  (or  Drest)  I.,  son  of  Irb  (or  Erp,  or  Wirp). 

451,  Talore  I.,  son  of  Aniel,  reigned  four  years. 

455-57,  Nechtan  I.,  surnamedMorbet,  son  of  Irb  (or  Erp);  reigned  twenty- 
four  years. 

480,  Drest  (or  Drust)  II.,  surnamed  Gurthinmoch  ;  reigned  thirty 
years. 

510,  Galanau  ;  reigned  twelve  years. 

522,  Dadrest  ;  reigned  one  year. 

523,  Drest  (or  Drust)  III.,  son  of  Gyrom  ;  reigned  eleven  years. 

524,  the  same,  with  Drust  IV.,  son  of  Udrust  (or  Wdrost).19 
529,  Drust  III.  (alone). 

534,  Gartnaoch  I.,  son  of  Gyrom  ;  reigned  seven  years. 

541,  Giltram  (or  Cailtram),  son  of  Gyrom  ;  reigned  one  year. 

542,  Talorg  II.,  son  of  Muircholaich  ;  reigned  eleven  years. 

553,  Drest  V.,  son  of  Munait  ;  reigned  one  year. 

554,  Galam,*0  son  of  Cendaeladh  ;  reigned  two  years  ;  died  (probably)  580. 

555,  the  same,  with  Bridei. 

556,  Bridei  (or  Bruidi,  or  Brudei,  or  Brude)  I.,  son  of  Mailcon  (Bruidi 
mac  Mailochon)  ;  reigned  thirty  years  ;  died  583. 

586,  Gartnard  (or  Gartnaidh)  II.,  son  of  Domelch  (or  Domlech  or  Don- 
ald) (Gartnay  mac  Donald)  ;  reigned  eleven  years  ;  died  599. 

597,  Nechtan  II.,  grandson  (or  nephew)  of  Uerd  (Nechtan  Hy  Firb)  ; 
reigned  twenty  years. 

612  (or  617),  Cinioch  (or  Cinaeth,  or  Kenneth,  or  Cinadon),  son  of 
Luchtren  (or  Lachtren)  ;  reigned  fourteen  to  nineteen  years  ;  died  631. 


190  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

631,  Gartnard  (or  Gartnaidh)  III.,  son  of  Wid  (or  Foith)  (Gartnay 
macFoith)  ;  reigned  four  years  ;  died  635. 

635,  Breidei  (or  Bruidi)  II.,  son  of  Wid  (or  Foith)  (Bruidi  mac  Foith)  ; 
reigned  five  years  ;  died  641. 

641,  Talorc  (or  Talore,  or  Talorcan)  III.,  son  of  Wid  (or  Foith)  (Talor- 
can  mac  Foith)  ;  reigned  twelve  years  ;  died  653. 

653,  Talorcan,  son  of  Ainfrait  (or  Anfrith,21  or  Eanfred)  ;  reigned  four 
years  ;  died  657. 

657-63,  Gartnait  (or  Gartnaidh)  IV.,  son  of  Donnell  (or  Domhnaill) 
(Gartnay  mac  Donald)  ;  reigned  six  and  a  half  years  ;  died  66^. 

665,  Drest  (or  Drust,  or  Drost)  VI.,  son  of  Donnell  and  brother  of 
Gartnach  (Drust  mac  Donald)  ;  reigned  seven  years  ;  expelled  672. 

672,  Bredei  (or  Bruidi,  or  Bruidhe,"  or  Bredei)  III.,  son  of  Bili  (or  Bile 
or  Beli)  (Bruidi  mac  Bili)  ;  reigned  twenty-one  years  ;  died  693. 

693,  Taran  (or  Gharan),  son  of  Entefedich  (or  Enfisedech)  (Gharan 
mac  Enfisedech)  ;  reigned  four  years  ;  expelled  697. 

695-7,  Brudei  (or  Bredei,  or  Bruidi,  or  Brude)  IV.,  son  of  Derili  (or 
Derelei)  (Brudei  mac  Derili)  ;  reigned  eleven  years  ;  died  706. 

709,  Nechtan  III.,  son  of  Derili  ;  reigned  fifteen  years  ;  resigned  724  ; 
returned  728  ;  died  729. 

724,  Drest  (or  Druxst  or  Drost)  VII.;  expelled  726;  died,  729. 

726,  Alpin,  son  of  Eachaidh  ;  expelled  728  ;  died  741. 

729-31,  Angus  (or  Hungus)  I.,  son  of  Fergus  (or  Wirgust)  ;  reigned 
thirty  years  ;  died  761. 

761,   Brudei  (or  Bruidi)  V.,   son  of  Fergus  ;  reigned  two  years  ;  died 

763. 

763,  Kenneth  (or  Cinaedh,  or  Ciniod),  son  of  Feredach  (or  Wirdech,  or 
Wredech)  ;  reigned  twelve  years  ;  died  775. 

775,  Alpin,  son  of  Wroid  ;  reigned  three  years  ;  died  780. 

777-8,  Drust  (or  Drost),  son  of  Talorgen  (or  Talorcan)  ;  reigned  four  to 
five  years  ;  and  Talorgan  (or  Talorcan),  son  of  Angus  ;  reigned  two  and 
a  half  years  ;  died  about  782. 

784,  Conall,  son  of  Taidg  (or  Canaul,  son  of  Tarl'a)  ;  reigned  five  years  ; 
expelled  789-90. 

790,  Constantine,  son  of  Fergus  (or  Wirgust)  ;  reigned  thirty  years  ;  died 
820. 

820,  Angus  (brother  of  Constantine),  son  of  Fergus  ;  reigned  twelve 
years  ;  died  834. 

834,  Drust  (or  Drost),  son  of  Constantine,  and  Talorcan  (or  Talorgan), 
son  of  Uitholl  (or  Wthoil)  ;  reigned  about  three  years. 

836,  Eoganan,  son  of  Angus  ;  reigned  three  years  ;  died  839. 

839,  Wrad  (or  Fered),  son  of  Bargoit ;  reigned  about  three  years. 

842,  Bred  (or  Bruidi),  son  of  Ferat  ;  reigned  one  year. 

842-4,  Kenneth  II.,  surnamed  mac  Alpin,  King  of  Albany. 


The  Caledonians,  or  Picts  191 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XIV. 

1  One  of  the  most  useful  books  on  this  subject  is  Dr.  Daniel  Wilson's  Prehistoric  Annals 
of  Scotland. 

'Charles  I.  Elton,  Origins  of  English  History \  London,  1890. 

8  Dr.  Thurnam  was  the  first  to  recognise  that  the  long  skulls,  out  of  the  long  barrows  of 
Britain  and  Ireland,  were  of  the  Basque  or  Iberian  type,  and  Professor  Huxley  holds  that 
the  river-bed  skulls  belong  to  the  same  race.  We  have  therefore  proofs  that  an  Iberian  or 
Basque  population  spread  over  the  whole  of  Britain  and  Ireland  in  the  neolithic  age,  inhabit- 
ing caves,  and  burying  their  dead  in  caves  and  chambered  tombs,  just  as  in  the  Iberian 
peninsula  also,  in  the  neolithic  age. — Cave  Hunting,  p.  214,  by  W.  Boyd  Dawkins,  M.A.,  1874. 

4  "  The  site  of  the  prehistoric  Celtic  village  near  Glastonbury  has  been  further  excavated 
since  July  last  under  the  superintendence  of  the  discoverer,  Arthur  Bullied.  The  sites  of  the 
dwellings  are  marked  by  mounds.  One  of  these  contained  the  greatest  depth  of  clay  yet 
found,  no  less  than  nine  feet,  the  accumulation  of  successive  hearths,  which  were  found 
necessary  as  the  weight  of  the  clay  gradually  compressed  the  peat  beneath.  This  mound 
contained  three  hundred  tons  of  clay,  all  of  which  must  have  been  brought  in  their  boats  by 
the  inhabitants  from  the  neighboring  hills.  Under  the  mound  was  found  the  framework  of 
a  loom  with  brushwood  and  wattlework  to  form  the  foundation.  That  the  inhabitants  were 
much  engaged  in  spinning  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  in  addition  to  other  things  connected 
with  the  craft  no  fewer  than  forty  horn  and  bone  carding  combs  have  been  unearthed* 
Strangely  enough,  no  two  of  these  are  exactly  of  the  same  pattern.  As  in  previous 
seasons,  a  large  number  of  bone  articles  has  been  discovered.  The  number  of  broken  bone 
needles  and  splinters  of  bone  found  in  one  mound  seems  to  indicate  that  it  was  utilized  as  a 
needle  factory. 

' '  Another  mound  was  very  rich  in  fragments  of  pottery  and  other  evidences  of  the 
manufacture  of  hardware.  No  fewer  than  ten  bronze  fibulae  were  found,  these  being 
fashioned  almost  exactly  like  the  modern  safety-pin.  Two  bronze  studs,  probably  a  part  of 
harness  or  for  fastening  clothing,  were  also  found,  together  with  other  small  bronze  articles. 
A  neatly  cut  iron  file  about  eight  inches  long  was  found.  As  usual,  very  few  human  re- 
mains were  discovered,  part  of  the  skeleton  of  a  very  young  child  being  all  that  was  brought 
to  light  this  summer.  With  the  exception  of  the  cracked  skulls  of  a  few  unfortunate  warriors, 
the  remains  of  very  young  children  have  chiefly  been  found  in  past  years,  Mr.  Bullied  being 
of  the  opinion  that  these  primitive  people  conveyed  their  dead  to  the  neighboring  hills  for 
interment. 

"  Parts  of  three  broken  millstones  were  unearthed  and  in  one  mound  a  clay  oven,  measur- 
ing two  feet  by  nine  inches.  One  glass  article  only  was  brought  to  light  this  year,  a  blue 
glass  bead  with  a  wavy  line  of  dark  blue  running  around  it." — London  Times,  circa 
January,  1898. 

6  As  for  Britain,  one  of  the  most  thoroughly  non-Celtic  portions  of  it  south  of  the  Clyde 
was  probably  that  of  the  Selgovae  or  hunters,  in  Roman  times,  and  later  the  more  limited 
Pictish  district  beyond  the  Nith. — J.  Rhys,  Celtic  Britain,  p.  270. 

6  The  name  of  the  Nith  in  Ptolemy's  time  was  Novios,  and  it  is  from  it  that  this  people 
got  the  name  of  Novantae,  given  them  probably  by  Brythons.  ...  To  the  east  and 
northeast  of  the  Novantae  dwelt  the  Selgovae,  protected  by  thick  forests  and  a  difficult 
country.  They  have  left  their  name  in  the  modern  form  of  Solway  to  the  moss  and  to  the 
firth  called  after  them.  The  word  probably  meant  hunters,  and  the  people  to  whom  it 
applied  may  be  supposed,  not  only  to  have  been  no  Brythons,  but  to  have  been  to  no  very 
great  extent  Celtic  at  all,  except  perhaps  as  to  their  language,  which  they  may  have  adopted 
at  an  early  date  from  the  Goidelic  invaders  ;  in  a  great  measure  they  were  most  likely  a 
remnant  of  the  aboriginal  inhabitants,  and  the  same  remark  may  be  supposed  to  be  equally 
applicable  to  the  Novantae.     .     .     .     They  lived  between  the  Walls,  and  appeared  in  history 


192  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

as  Genunians,  we  think,  and  Attecotti.  .  .  .  The  struggle  in  which  they  took  part 
against  the  Romans  ended  in  their  ultimately  retaining  only  the  country  behind  the  Nith, 
where  the  name  of  the  Novantae  becomes  in  Bede's  mouth,  that  of  the  Niduarian  Picts, 
known  as  the  Picts  of  Galloway  for  centuries  afterwards. — Celtic  Britain,  pp.  220-221. 

The  name  "  Picti  "  was  likewise  applied  to  the  inhabitants  of  Galloway,  comprising  the 
modern  counties  of  Kirkcudbright  and  Wigton,  till  a  still  later  period,  and  survived  the  entire 
disappearance  of  the  name  as  applied  to  any  other  portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  Scotland, 
even  as  late  as  the  twelfth  century.  This  district  was  occupied  in  the  second  century  by  the 
tribe  termed  by  Ptolemy  the  "  Novantae,"  with  their  towns  of  Rerigonium  and  Lucopibia, 
and  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  same  people  did  not  occupy  it  throughout,  and  become 
known  as  the  Picts  of  Galloway,  of  which  "  Candida  Casa,"  or  Withern,  was  the  chief  seat, 
and  occupied  the  site  of  the  older  Lucopibia. — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  131. 

The  Picts  of  Galloway  are  occasionally  confounded  with  or  included  amongst  the 
Southern  Picts,  though  when  Bede  describes  the  latter  people  as  dwellers  beyond  the  Forth, 
at  the  foot  of  the  lofty  range  of  mountains  separating  them  from  the  northern  division  of  their 
race,  he  places  them  in  a  very  different  part  of  the  country  from  Galloway.  Ritson  maintains 
that  Galloway  was  a  province  of  the  Southern  Picts,  laying  it  down,  in  his  dogmatic  manner, 
"  as  an  incontrovertible  fact,  for  which  we  have  the  express  authority  of  Bede."  In  support 
of  this  assertion  he  quotes  Bede,  Hist.  Eccl.,  1.  iv.,  ch.  xxvi.,  which,  unfortunately  for  his  argu- 
ment, proves  exactly  the  contrary,  as  the  seat  of  Trumwine's  bishopric  is  there  said  to  have 
been  placed  at  Abercorn  on  the  Forth,  which  divides  the  territories  of  the  Picts  and  the 
Angles — a  very  long  way  from  Galloway.  Bede  was  very  well  acquainted  with  this  latter 
district  under  the  name  of  the  diocese  of  Candida  Casa,  as  it  belonged,  when  he  wrote,  to  the 
kingdom  of  Northumbria  ;  and  in  his  last  chapter  he  commemorates  the  establishment  of  an 
Anglian  bishop  within  its  boundaries.  As  he  distinctly  says  that  the  Picts,  after  their 
victory  at  Nectan's  Mere,  recovered  from  the  Angles  all  that  they  had  previously  lost,  it  is 
plain  that  the  diocese  of  Candida  Casa,  which  remained  in  possession  of  the  Northumbrians, 
could  not  have  belonged  to  the  Picts,  but  must  have  been  conquered  from  another  race,  the 
Britons.  The  authority  of  Bede  is  quite  sufficient  to  refute  the  account  of  Jocelin,  a  monk 
who  in  the  twelfth  century  ascribed  the  conversion  of  the  Picts  of  Galloway  to  a  certain 
shadowy  St.  Kentigern  in  the  seventh  ;  this  very  district  having  been,  upwards  of  two  centuries 
before,  the  seat  of  a  Christian  bishop,  the  British  Ninian.  A  still  more  apocryphal  story 
occurs  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum  (nth  March),  that  St.  Constantine  of  Cornwall  (the  contem- 
porary of  Gildas)  was  martyred  in  Kintyre  about  the  year  570,  when  preaching  to  the  heathen 
Galwegians  and  pagan  Scots  ;  or  exactly  at  the  same  time  when  Columba  was  converting  the 
Northern  Picts  from  his  asylum  of  Iona,  which  he  received  from  the  Christian  King  of  the 
Dalriads.  Another  argument  has  been  brought  forward  to  place  the  Picts  in  Galloway  in 
the  days  of  Bede,  because  the  venerable  historian  has  said  that  St.  Cuthbert,  on  an  excursion 
from  Melrose,  was  driven  by  stress  of  weather  to  the  territory  of  the  Picts  called  Niduari — 
44  ad  terram  Pictorum  qui  Niduari  vocantur."  44  The  Picts  inhabiting  the  banks  of  the  Nith 
in  Dumfriesshire,"  say  Smith  and  Pinkerton,  4<  whither  the  holy  man  could  not  have  gone  in 
a  boat,"  retorts  Ritson — with  much  truth — suggesting  in  his  turn  Long  Niddry  in  Linlithgow- 
shire, to  reach  which  place,  however,  the  holy  man's  boat  must  have  been  driven  by  stress  of 
weather  across  a  considerable  tract  of  dry  land.  The  explanation  of  the  difficulty  seems  to 
be  that  Cuthbert,  sailing  from  some  point  on  the  eastern  coast,  was  driven  northwards  by 
contrary  winds  into  the  Firth  of  Tay,  landing  near  Abernethy  on  the  coast  of  Fife,  the 
inhabitants  of  the  banks  of  the  Nethy  probably  being  the  44  Picti  qui  Niduari  vocantur". — 
Scotland  under  her  Early  Kings,  vol.  ii.,  p.  382.     See  Note  12,  p.  214. 

1  As  early  as  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  the  British  provinces  were  already  persis- 
tently attacked  by  sea  and  land.  The  Picts  and  Scots,  and  the  warlike  nation  of  the 
44  Attecotti,"  from  whom  the  Empire  was  accustomed  to  recruit  its  choicest  soldiers,  the  fleets 
of  Irish  pirates  in  the  north,  the  Franks  and  Saxons  on  the  southern  shores,  combined  to- 


The  Caledonians,  or  Picts  193 

gether,  whenever  a  chance  presented  itself,  to  burn  and  devastate  the  country,  to  cut  off  an 
outlying  garrison,  to  carry  off  women  and  children  like  cattle  captured  in  a  foray,  and  to  offer 
the  bodies  of  Roman  citizens  as  sacrifices.  .  .  .  The  "  Notitia  Dignitatum  "  [compiled 
about  a.d.  400]  mentions  several  regiments  of  Attecotti  serving  for  the  most  part  in  Gaul 
and  Spain.  Two  of  their  regiments  were  enrolled  among  the  "  Honorians,"  the  most  distin- 
guished troops  in  the  Imperial  armies.  Though  their  country  is  not  certainly  known,  it 
seems  probable  that  they  inhabited  the  wilder  parts  of  Galloway. — Elton,  Origins  of  English 
History,  p.  338.  After  the  building  of  the  Roman  wall  by  which  those  south  of  it  were 
severed  from  their  kinsmen  north  of  it  the  former  probably  soon  lost  their  national  character- 
istics and  became  Brythonicized,  while  the  Selgovae  remained  to  form,  with  the  Novantae, 
the  formidable  people  of  the  Attecotti,  who  afterwards  gave  Roman  Britain  so  much  to  do, 
until  their  power  was  broken  by  Theodosius,  who  enrolled  their  able-bodied  men  in  the  Roman 
army,  and  sent  them  away  to  the  continent,  where  no  less  than  four  distinct  bodies  of  them 
served  at  the  time  when  the  Table  of  Dignities  was  drawn  up.  They  were  a  fierce  and  war- 
like people,  but  by  the  end  of  the  Roman  occupation  they  seem  to  have  been  subdued  or 
driven  beyond  the  Nith:  .  .  .  here  the  language  of  the  inhabitants  down  to  the 
sixteenth  century  was  Goidelic. — Celtic  Britain,  pp.  233-234. 

Upon  the  whole  it  seems  highly  probable — and  these  Gaulish  inscriptions  add  to  the  weight 
of  probability — that  the  Galli  of  Caesar  were  in  the  same  line  of  Celtic  descent  with  the  Irish, 
and  that  the  name  is  preserved  to  this  day  in  Gadhel  and  Gael,  and  commemorated  also  in 
the  triad  Galedin,  Celyddon,  and  Gwyddyl,  as  well  as  in  Caledonia,  Galatas,  Keltai,  and 
Celtae.  It  is  also  nearly  certain  that  these  Galli  or  Gaels  were  the  first  to  colonize  Britain, 
and  probably  that  they  were  the  first  to  colonize  Gaul,  and  that  in  both  cases  they  were 
closely  followed  by  a  people  of  the  same  original  stock  and  using  a  similar  language,  called 
Cymry,  Cimri,  and  in  earlier  times  Kimmerioi,  Cimmerii. — Thomas  Nicholas,  Pedigree  of  the 
English  People,  p.  43. 

There  also  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  the  statement  which  eminent  writers  have  handed 
down  is  virtually  correct,  that  the  Goidels  or  Gaels  were  the  first  Celtic  inhabitants,  who 
absorbed  the  aborigines  as  the  situations  or  circumstances  demanded,  and  who  in  turn  were 
next  dislodged  by  the  Cymri,  and  other  Celtic  fresh  hordes  who  flocked  into  Britain,  driving 
the  said  Goidels  northwards,  and  across  to  Ireland.  If  other  proof  were  wanting,  we  have 
it  in  the  surnames,  and  the  names  of  places,  many  of  which  are  common  to  both  Galloway 
and  Ireland,  being  found  on  both  sides  of  the  Channel.  It  is  also  not  to  be  forgotten  that,  as 
Roger  de  Hovedon  relates,  the  Galwegians,  at  the  battle  of  the  Standard  in  a.d.  1138,  used 
the  war-cry  "  Albanach  !  Albanach  !  "  thus  identifying  themselves  as  Irish-Scots  ;  for  to  the 
present  time  the  Irish  call  the  people  of  Scotland  Albanach  and  Albanaigh.  It  also  ex- 
tends further,  for  as  Irish-Scots  its  use  implied  that  they  considered  they  had  returned  to 
the  land  of  their  fathers,  and  were  entitled  to  be  Scotsmen,  which  is  the  Gaelic  meaning  of 
the  word.  Hovedon,  having  lived  at  the  time,  is  thus  contemporary  evidence  and  it  is 
related  that  he  was  sent  on  a  mission  to  Scotland. — MacKerlie,  Galloway,  Ancient  and 
Modern,  p.  62. 

8  "  That  this  is  so  may  be  inferred  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  certainty  from  the  inaug- 
uration and  progress  of  the  English  conquest  of  a  later  age,  which,  beginning  at  nearly  the 
same  point  on  the  eastern  coast  that  Caesar  had  found  most  convenient  to  reach  from  Gaul, 
gradually  extended  westward  and  northward,  driving  the  Celts  before  until  they  reached  the 
western  shore. 

"  The  early  separation  of  these  pioneers  of  the  Gaelic  race  through  their  crossing  into 
Ireland,  whether  from  Scotland  or  Wales,  is  quite  sufficient  to  account  for  the  marked  differ- 
ence now  existing  between  the  Gaelic,  or  Irish,  language  and  the  Welsh."— Nicholas,  Pedigree 
of  the  English  People,  London,  1873,  p.  46. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  a  contemporary  of  Caesar,  states  that  Ireland  was  inhabited  by 
44  Britains."    Camden  thinks  they  first  emigrated  from  Galloway.     Spain  was  at  least  five 


194  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

hundred  miles  distant ;  and  the  nearest  promontory  of  Gaul  lay  about  three  hundred  miles 
from  the  shores  of  Ireland. 

*  Professor  Rhys,  in  his  latest  work  (  The  Welsh  People,  New  York  and  London,  1900, 
written  in  collaboration  with  Dr.  David  Brynmor-Jones),  has  applied  the  name  "  Goidelo- 
Celtic,"  or  "Celtican,"  to  the  language  of  the  Gaelic  Celts,  and  "  Galato-Celtic,"  or  "  Ga- 
latic,"  to  that  of  the  Brythonic  Celts.     On  this  subject,  he  says  : 

"  The  ancient  distinction  of  speech  between  the  Celts  implies  a  corresponding  difference 
of  race  and  institutions,  a  difference  existing  indeed  long  before  Celts  of  any  description  came 
to  these  islands.  .  .  .  The  two  peoples  are  found  to  have  differed  largely  in  their  manner 
of  disposing  of  their  dead,  and  each  had  weapons  characteristic  of  its  own  civilization.  The 
interments  with  the  most  important  remains  of  the  older  stock  are  found  mostly  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  Alps,  including  the  upper  portions  of  the  basin  of  the  Danube  and  the  plains 
of  North  Italy  (see  Bertrad  and  Reinach's  volume  on  Les  Celles  dans  les  Vallees  du  Po  et  du 
Danube,  Paris,  1894).  This  older  Celtic  world  began,  about  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  to  be  in- 
vaded by  the  Galatic  Celts,  whose  home  may  be  inferred  to  have  consisted  of  Central  and 
Northern  Germany  and  of  Belgium  ;  and  the  remains  of  these  Galatic  Celts  are  to  be  studied 
in  the  great  burial  places  between  the  Seine,  the  Marne,  and  the  Rhine — in  the  country,  in 
short,  from  which  they  invaded  Britain.  It  has  been  surmised  that  this  movement  was  begun 
by  the  Brythons  between  the  time  of  Pytheas,  in  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  and  the  visits  of 
Julius  Caesar.  The  latter  mentions,  (ii.,  4.)  a  certain  Diviciacos,  king  of  the  Suessiones,  a 
Belgic  people  which  has  left  its  name  to  Soissons,  as  the  most  powerful  prince  in  Gaul,  and 
as  ruling  also  over  Britain.  This  was,  moreover,  late  enough  to  be  within  the  memory  of 
men  living  in  Caesar's  time.     .     .     . 

"  When,  it  may  be  asked,  did  the  other  Celts,  the  Goidels,  whom  the  Brythons  found 
here,  arrive  in  this  country  ?  It  is  impossible  to  give  any  precise  answer  to  such  a  question, 
but  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  Goidels  came  over  not  later  than  the  great  movements  which 
took  place  in  the  Celtic  world  of  the  Continent  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  before  our  era 
(see  the  Premiers  Habitants  de  l*  Europe,  vol.  i.,  p.  262,  and  Zimmer's  Mutterrecht  der  Pikten 
in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Rechtsgeschichte,  vol.  xv.,  pp.  233,  234).  We  mean  the  movements 
which  resulted  in  the  Celts  reaching  the  Mediterranean  and  penetrating  into  Spain,  while 
others  of  the  same  family  began  to  press  towards  the  east  of  Europe,  whence  some  of  them 
eventually  crossed  to  Asia  Minor  and  made  themselves  a  home  in  the  country  called  after 
them  Galatia.  On  the  whole,  we  dare  not  suppose  the  Goidels  to  have  come  to  Britain  much 
later  than  the  sixth  century  B.C.  ;  .  .  .  rather  should  we  say  that  they  probably  began  to 
arrive  in  this  country  earlier.  Before  the  Brythons  came  the  Goidels  had  presumably  oc- 
cupied most  of  the  island  south  of  the  firths  of  the  Clyde  and  Forth.  So  when  the  Brythons 
arrived  and  began  to  press  the  Goidels  in  the  west,  some  of  the  latter  may  have  crossed  to 
Ireland  ;  possibly  they  had  begun  still  earlier  to  settle  there.  The  portion  of  Ireland  which 
they  first  occupied  was  probably  the  tract  known  as  the  kingdom  of  Meath,  approximately 
represented  now  by  the  diocese  of  that  name  ;  but  settlements  may  have  also  been  made  by 
them  at  other  points  on  the  coast. 

' '  We  have  next  to  consider  the  question  whether  the  first  Celtic  comers,  the  Goidels, 
were  also  the  first  inhabitants  of  this  country.  This  may  be  briefly  answered  to  the  effect 
that  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  think  so,  or  even  to  suppose  that  it  may  not  have  been 
uninterruptedly  inhabited  for  a  time  before  it  ceased  to  form  a  continuous  portion  of  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe.  .  .  .  It  is  but  natural  to  suppose  that  the  Goidels,  when  they  arrived, 
subjugated  the  natives,  and  made  slaves  of  them  and  drudges.  From  the  first  the  fusion  of  the 
two  races  may  have  begun  to  take  place.  .  .  .  The  process  of  fusion  must  have  been  quick- 
ened by  the  advent  of  a  third  and  hostile  element,  the  Brythonic  .  .  .  and  under  the  pres- 
sure exerted  by  the  Brythons  the  fusion  of  the  two  other  nations  may  have  been  so  complete 
as  to  produce  a  new  people  of  mixed  Goidelic  and  native  origin.  .  .  .  Accordingly,  sup- 
posing the  Aborigines  not  to  have  been  Aryans,  one  might  expect  the  language  of  the  resultant 


The  Caledonians,  or  Picts  195 

Goidelic  people  to  show  more  non-Aryan  traits  than  the  language  of  the  Brythons  ;  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  this  proves  to  be  the  case." 

10  The  southern  Damnonii,  inhabiting  as  they  did  what  was  later  the  nucleus  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Cumbrians,  must  undoubtedly  be  regarded  as  their  ancestors  and  as  Brythons. 
So  were  the  Otadini  Brythons  .  .  .  they  disappeared  early,  their  country  having  been  seized 
in  part  by  the  Picts  from  the  other  side  of  the  Forth,  and  in  part  by  Germanic  invaders  from 
beyond  the  sea. — Celtic  Britain,  p.  271. 

Over  the  ethnography  of  Selgovae  and  Novantse  much  controversy  has  taken  place.  It 
is  probable  that  on  the  shores  of  Solway,  as  in  the  rest  of  the  British  Isles,  there  was  at  one 
time  an  aboriginal  race,  small  and  dark-haired,  which  early  Greek  writers  describe  as  being 
replaced  by  the  large-limbed,  fairer-skinned  Celts.  The  early  Irish  historical  legends  contain 
numerous  allusions  to  this  people,  generally  known  as  Firbolg.  But  as  it  cannot  be  affirmed 
that  any  trace  of  these  has  been  identified,  either  in  the  traditions  or  sepulchral  remains  of 
this  particular  district,  further  speculation  about  them  is  for  the  present  futile.  The  fairest 
inference  from  the  majority  of  place-names  in  Novantia  —  now  Galloway  —  as  well  as  from 
the  oldest  recorded  personal  names,  is  that  it  was  long  inhabited  by  people  of  the  Goidelic  or 
Gaelic  branch  of  Celts,  speaking  the  same  language,  no  doubt  with  some  dialectic  variation,  as 
the  natives  of  Ireland  and  the  rest  of  what  is  now  Scotland.  The  Cymric  or  Welsh  speech, 
which  was  afterwards  diffused  among  the  Britons  of  Dumfriesshire  and  Strathclyde,  did  not 
prevail  to  dislodge  innumerable  place-names  in  the  Goidelic  language  which  still  remain 
within  the  territory  of  the  Strathclyde  Britons.  That  the  people  who  dwelt  longest  in  Gallo- 
way spoke  neither  the  Welsh  form  of  Celtic  nor  the  Pictish  dialect  of  Gaelic,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  absence  of  any  certain  traces  of  either  of  these  languages  among  their  names  of 
places.  Yet,  as  will  be  shown  hereafter,  they  bore  the  name  of  Picts  long  after  it  had  fallen 
into  disuse  in  other  parts  of  Scotland.  They  were  Picts,  yet  not  the  same  as  Northern  Picts 
dwelling  beyond  the  Mounth,  nor  as  the  Southern  Picts,  dwelling  between  the  Mounth  and 
the  Forth  ;  Gaels,  yet  not  of  one  brotherhood  with  other  Gaels  —  a  distinction  emphasized  by 
the  name  given  to  them  of  Gallgaidhel  or  stranger  Gaels.  This  term  became  in  the  Welsh 
speech  Gallwyddel  {dd  sounds  like  th  in  "this"),  whence  the  name  Galloway,  which  still 
denotes  the  Stewartry  of  Kirkcudbright  and  the  shire  or  county  of  Wigtown.  Reginald  of 
Durham,  writing  in  the  twelfth  century,  has  preserved  one  word  of  Galloway  Pictish.  He 
says  that  certain  clerics  of  Kirkcudbright  were  called  scollofthes  in  the  language  of  the  Picts. 
This  is  a  rendering  of  the  Latin  scolasticus,  differing  not  greatly  from  the  Erse  and  Gaelic  scolog, 
more  widely  from  the  Welsh  yscolAeie. — Maxwell,  History  of  Dumfries  and  Galloway,  pp.  4,  5. 

11  "  One  may  say  that  the  Welsh  people  of  the  present  day  is  made  up  of  three  elements  : 
the  Aboriginal,  the  Goidelic,  and  the  Brythonic.  And  it  would  be  unsafe  to  assume  that 
the  later  elements  predominate  ;  for  the  Celtic  invaders,  both  Goidels  and  Brythons,  may 
have  come  in  comparatively  small  numbers,  not  to  mention  the  fact  that  the  aboriginal  race, 
having  been  here  possibly  thousands  of  years  before  the  first  Aryan  arrived,  may  have  had 
such  an  advantage  in  the  matter  of  acclimatization,  that  it  alone  survives  in  force.  This  is 
now  supposed  to  be  the  case  with  France,  whose  people,  taken  in  the  bulk,  are  neither 
Frankish  nor  Celtic  so  much  as  the  representatives  of  the  non-Aryan  populations  which  the 
first  Aryans  found  there.  It  thus  becomes  a  matter  of  interest  for  us  to  know  all  we  can 
about  the  earliest  inhabitants  of  this  country.  Now,  the  question  of  the  origin  of  that  race 
is,  according  to  one  view  taken  of  it,  inseparably  connected  with  the  Pictish  question  ;  and 
the  most  tenable  hypothesis  may  be  said  to  be,  that  the  Picts  were  non-Aryans,  whom  the 
first  Celtic  migrations  found  already  settled  here.  The  Picts  appear  to  have  retained  their 
language  and  institutions  latest  on  the  east  coast  of  Scotland  in  portions  of  the  region  be- 
tween Clackmannan  and  Banff.  But  Irish  literature  alludes  to  Picts  here  and  there  in  Ireland, 
and  that  in  such  a  way  as  to  favor  the  belief  that  they  were  survivals  of  a  race  holding  pos- 
session at  one  time  of  the  whole  country.  If  the  Picts  were  not  Aryans,  we  could  hardly 
suppose  them  to  have  been  able  to  acquire  possession  of  extensive  tracts  of  these  islands  after 


196  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

the  arrival  of  such  a  powerful  and  warlike  race  as  the  early  Aryans.  The  natural  conclusion 
is,  that  the  Picts  were  here  before  the  Aryans  came,  that  they  were,  in  fact,  the  aborigines. 

"Now,  something  is  known  of  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  ancient  Picts  ;  for  one 
of  them  at  least  was  so  remarkable  as  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  ancient  authors  who 
mention  the  peoples  of  this  country.  It  was  the  absence  among  them  of  the  institution  of 
marriage  as  known  to  men  of  the  Aryan  race.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  history  of  the  Picts 
in  later  times,  especially  in  the  case  of  their  kings,  for  it  is  well  known  that  a  Pictish  king 
could  not  be  succeeded  by  a  son  of  his  own,  but  usually  by  a  sister's  son.  The  succession 
was  through  the  mother,  and  it  points  back  to  a  state  of  society  which,  previous  to  the  con- 
version of  the  Picts  to  Christianity,  was  probably  based  on  matriarchy  as  distinguished  from 
marriage  and  marital  authority.     .     .     . 

"  The  same  conclusion  as  to  the  probable  non- Aryan  origin  of  the  Picts  is  warranted  by 
facts  of  another  order,  namely,  those  of  speech  ;  but  the  Pictish  question  is  rendered  philo- 
logically  difficult  by  the  scantiness  of  the  remains  of  the  Pictish  language.  .  .  .  Failing 
to  recognize  the  borrowing  of  Goidelic  and  Brythonic  words  by  the  Picts,  some  have  been  led 
to  regard  Pictish  as  a  kind  of  Gaelic,  and  some  as  a  dialect  akin  to  Welsh.  The  point  to 
have  been  decided,  however,  was  not  whether  Gaelic  or  Welsh  explains  certain  words  said  to 
have  been  in  use  among  the  Picts,  but  whether  there  does  not  remain  a  residue  to  which 
neither  Gaelic  nor  Welsh,  nor,  indeed,  any  Aryan  tongue  whatsoever,  can  supply  any  sort  of 
key.  This  is  beginning  of  late  to  be  perceived.  .  .  .  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the 
theory  of  the  non- Aryan  origin  of  the  Pictish  language  holds  the  field  at  present." — Rhys, 
The  Welsh  People,  pp.  13-16. 

12  Some  information  in  regard  to  the  early  inhabitants  of  the  district  west  of  the  Nith  may 
be  found  in  the  works  of  Mr.  P.  H.  MacKerlie,  chief  of  which  is  Lands  and  their  Owners  in 
Galloway,  In  speaking  of  the  language,  he  says  :  "  It  is  also  found  that  the  Lowland  Scottish 
was  not  derived  from  the  Saxon,  from  which  it  differs  in  many  respects,  but  appears  to  have 
had  its  origin  from  the  language  of  the  Northern  Picts  and  Norwegian  settlers.  It  is  true 
that  there  are  no  means  of  distinctly  tracing  this ;  but  the  belief  of  some  writers  that  the 
Picts  were  originally  Britons,  and  became  mixed  with  Norse  blood,  is  more  than  probable. 
The  Pictish  language,  so  far  known  as  Celtic,  is  considered  as  having  been  nearer  to  the  dia- 
lects of  the  Britons  than  to  those  of  the  Gael,  which  coincides  with  the  above  account  of  their 
origin  —  hence  the  characteristics  of  both,  blended  with  the  Goidel  or  Gaelic,  to  be  found  in 
the  Scots.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Scottish  language  had  its  foundation  principally 
from  these  sources.  Chalmers  gives  many  Scottish  words  as  decidedly  British  or  Cymric. 
In  addition  there  are  many  Goidelic  or  Gaelic  words,  as  can  be  traced  by  any  one  possessed 
of  Gaelic  and  Scottish  dictionaries.  It  is  historical  that  in  the  eleventh  century  Gaelic  was 
in  use  at  the  Court  of  Malcolm  Canmore,  and  also  in  the  Church  at  that  period.  This 
continued  until  Edgar  succeeded  as  king  in  1098,  when  Norman  French  (not  Saxon)  dis- 
placed the  Gaelic  at  Court." — Galloway,  Ancient  and  Modern,  p.  79. 

Mr.  MacKerlie's  work  is  chiefly  valuable  for  its  local  features,  and  he  cannot  be  too  closely 
followed  in  his  general  conclusions.  His  statement  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Scottish  language 
must  be  taken  with  considerable  allowance.  Mr.  Hill  Burton,  however,  takes  an  equally 
extreme  position  on  the  other  side  of  the  question.  In  speaking  of  the  Lowlanders,  he  says  : 
"  How  far  Celtic  blood  may  have  mingled  with  their  race  we  cannot  tell,  but  it  was  the 
nature  of  their  language  obstinately  to  resist  all  admixture  with  the  Gaelic.  The  broadest 
and  purest  Lowland  Scotch  is  spoken  on  the  edge  of  the  Highland  line.  It  ought,  one  would 
think,  to  be  a  curious  and  instructive  topic  for  philology  to  deal  with,  that  while  the  estab- 
lished language  of  our  country  —  of  England  and  Scotland  —  borrows  at  all  hands  —  from 
Greek,  from  Latin,  from  French,  —  it  takes  nothing  whatever,  either  in  its  structure  or 
vocabulary,  from  the  Celtic  race,  who  have  lived  for  centuries  in  the  same  island  with  the 
Saxon-speaking  races,  English  and  Scots." — History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  200. 

13  In  elucidation  of  this  passage  no  less  reputable  an  authority  than  Thomas  H.  Huxley 


The  Caledonians,  or  Picts  197 

is  named  by  Mr.  Skene  as  sponsor  for  his  proposition  that  "  the  people  termed  Gauls  and 
those  called  Germans  by  the  Romans  did  not  differ  in  any  important  physical  character." 
This,  indeed,  coincides  with  the  usual  description  given  by  the  Romans. 

14  This  subject  has  been  discussed  in  connection  with  the  succession  of  the  Pictish  kings. 
The  names  of  the  reigning  kings  are  in  the  main  confined  to  four  or  five  names,  as  Brude, 
Drust,  Talorgan,  Nechtan,  Gartnaidh,  and  these  never  appear  among  the  names  of  the  fathers 
of  kings,  nor  does  the  name  of  a  father  occur  twice  in  the  list.  Further,  in  two  cases  we 
know  that  while  the  kings  who  reigned  were  termed  respectively  Brude  and  Talorcan,  the 
father  of  the  one  was  a  Briton,  and  of  the  other  an  Angle.  The  conclusion  which  Mr.  Mc- 
Lennan in  his  very  original  work  on  primitive  marriage  draws  from  this  is,  that  it  raises  a 
strong  presumption  that  all  the  fathers  were  men  of  other  tribes.  At  any  rate,  there  remains 
the  fact,  after  every  deduction  has  been  made,  that  the  fathers  and  mothers  were  in  no  case 
of  the  same  family  name  ;  and  he  quotes  this  as  a  reason  for  believing  that  exogamy  prevailed 
among  the  Picts.  But  this  explanation,  though  it  goes  some  way,  will  not  fully  interpret  the 
anomalies  in  the  list  of  Pictish  kings.  The  only  hypothesis  that  seems  to  afford  a  full  expla- 
nation is  one  that  would  suppose  that  the  kings  among  the  Picts  were  elected  from  one  family, 
clan,  or  tribe,  or  possibly  from  one  in  each  of  the  two  divisions  of  the  Northern  and  Southern 
Picts  ;  that  there  lingered  among  the  Picts  the  old  custom  among  the  Celts,  who,  to  use  the 
language  of  Mr.  McLennan,  "  were  anciently  lax  in  their  morals,  and  recognized  relationship 
through  mothers  only  ;  that  intermarriage  was  not  permitted  in  this  royal  family  tribe,  and 
the  women  had  to  obtain  their  husbands  from  the  men  of  other  tribes,  not  excluding  those  of 
a  different  race  ;  that  the  children  were  adopted  into  the  tribe  of  the  mother,  and  certain 
names  were  exclusively  bestowed  on  such  children." — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  pp.  233-234  ; 
John  F.  McLennan,  Origin  of  the  Form  of  Capture  in  Marriage  Ceremonies. 

15  These  Britons,  known  by  the  name  of  Maeatae,  included  under  them  several  lesser 
people,  such  as  the  Otadini,  Selgovae,  Novantes,  Damnii,  etc. — T.  Innes,  Critical  Essay  on 
the  Ancient  Inhabitants  of  the  Northern  Parts  of  Britain  or  Scotland,  book  i.,  ch.  ii.,  art.  i. 

16  Herodian  (lib.  iii.),  in  his  account  of  Severus's  expedition,  written  about  240,  calls  the 
same  inhabitants  of  Caledonia  simply  Britons,  but  he  describes  them  as  Picts,  or  painted,  in 
these  words  :  "  They  mark  their  bodies  with  various  pictures  of  all  manner  of  animals,  and 
therefore  they  clothe  not  themselves  lest  they  hide  the  painted  outside  of  their  bodies." — Innes, 
book  i.,  ch.  iii.,  art.  i. 

11  "  The  Scots,  in  their  own  tongue,  have  their  name  for  the  painted  body  [Cruithnigh], 
for  that  they  are  marked  by  sharp-pointed  instruments  of  iron,  with  black  pigments,  with 
the  figures  of  various  animals.   .   .   . 

"  Some  nations,  not  only  in  their  vestments,  but  also  in  their  bodies,  have  certain  things 
peculiar  to  themselves  .  .  .  nor  is  there  wanting  to  the  nation  of  the  Picts  the  name  of  the 
body,  but  the  efficient  needle,  with  minute  punctures,  rubs  in  the  expressed  juices  of  a  native 
herb,  that  it  may  bring  these  scars  to  its  own  fashion  :  an  infamous  nobility  with  painted 
limbs." — Isadore  of  Seville,  Origines,  1.  ix.,  ch.  ii.;  and  1.  xix.,  ch.  xxiii. 

18  The  Picts  and  Scots  have  usually  been  associated  with  Caledonia.  These  names  are 
recent  in  origin,  being  used  only  by  later  Roman  writers.  Bede  (sixth  cent.)  calls  Caledonia 
"  Provincia  Pictorum  "  ;  and  it  would  seem  that  in  his  time  the  name  Picts,  or  Pehts,  had 
nearly  superseded  the  older  term  Caledonii  —  derived  from  the  Cymric  Celydon,  and  this 
related  to  the  generic  Galatse,  Celts,  Galli. — Nicholas,  Pedigree  of  the  English  People,  p.  49. 
The  proper  Scots,  as  no  one  denies,  were  a  Gaelic  colony  from  Ireland.  The  only 
question  is  as  to  the  Picts  or  Caledonians.  Were  they  another  Gaelic  tribe,  the  vestige  of  a 
Gaelic  occupation  of  the  island  earlier  than  the  British  occupation,  or  were  they  simply 
Britons  who  had  never  been  brought  under  the  Roman  dominion  ?  The  geographical  aspect 
of  the  case  favors  the  former  belief,  but  the  weight  of  the  philological  evidence  seems  to  be 
on  the  side  of  the  latter. — Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  ch.  ii.,  sec.  1. 

The  Picts  were  simply  Britons  who  had  been  sheltered  from  Roman  conquest  by  the 


198  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

fastnesses  of  the  Highlands,  and  who  were  at  last  roused  in  their  turn  to  attack  by  the  weak- 
ness of  the  province  and  the  hope  of  plunder.  Their  invasions  penetrated  to  the  heart  of  the 
island.  Raids  so  extensive  could  hardly  have  been  effected  without  help  from  within,  and 
the  dim  history  of  the  time  allows  us  to  see  not  merely  an  increase  of  disunion  between  the 
Romanized  and  un-Romanized  population  of  Britain,  but  even  an  alliance  between  the  last 
and  their  free  kinsfolk,  the  Picts. — J.  R.  Green,  Short  History  of  the  English  People,  ch.  i., 
sec.  1. 

The  Southern  Picts  are  said  by  Bede  to  have  had  seats  within  these  mountains.  .  .  . 
These  districts  consist  of  the  Perthshire  and  Forfarshire  Highlands,  the  former  of  which  is 
known  by  the  name  of  Atholl.  The  western  boundary  of  the  territory  of  the  Southern  Picts 
was  Drumalban,  which  separated  them  from  the  Scots  of  Dalriada,  and  their  southern  boun- 
dary the  Forth.  The  main  body  of  the  Southern  Picts  also  belonged  no  doubt  to  the  Gaelic 
race,  though  they  may  have  possessed  some  differences  in  the  idiom  of  their  language  ;  but 
the  original  population  of  the  country,  extending  from  the  Forth  to  the  Tay,  consisted  of  part 
of  the  tribe  of  Damnonii,  who  belonged  to  the  Cornish  variety  of  the  British  race,  and  they 
appear  to  have  been  incorporated  with  the  Southern  Picts,  and  to  have  introduced  a  British 
element  into  their  language.  The  Frisian  settlements,  too,  on  the  shores  of  the  Firth  of  Forth 
may  also  have  left  their  stamp  on  this  part  of  the  nation. — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  231. 

19  This  Drust  is  clearly  connected  with  Galloway  ;  and  we  thus  learn  that  when  two 
kings  appear  in  the  Pictish  Chronicle  as  reigning  together,  one  of  them  is  probably  king  of 
the  Picts  of  Galloway. 

"  Near  to  the  parish  church  of  Anwoth,  in  Galloway,  is  a  low  undulating  range  of  hills, 
called  the  Boreland  hills.  One  of  these  goes  by  the  name  of  Trusty's  Hill,  and  round  its 
top  may  be  traced  the  remains  of  a  vitrified  wall." — Stuart's  Sculptured  Stones,  vol.  i.,  p.  31. 

20  He,  too,  was  probably  a  king  of  the  Picts  of  Galloway,  and  traces  of  his  name  also  can 
be  found  in  the  topography  of  that  district.  The  old  name  of  the  parish  of  New  Abbey,  in 
Kirkcudbright,  was  Loch  Kendeloch. 

21  Skene  says  that  Talorcan  was  obviously  the  son  of  that  Ainfrait,  the  son  of  Aedilfrid, 
an  elder  brother  of  Osuald,  who  on  his  father's  death  had  taken  refuge  with  the  Picts,  and 
his  son  Talorcan  must  have  succeeded  to  the  throne  through  a  Pictish  mother.  At  the  time, 
then,  when  King  Oswiu  extended  his  sway  over  the  Britons  and  Scots,  there  was  a  king  of  the 
Anglic  race  by  paternal  descent  actually  reigning  over  the  Picts.  Tighernac  records  his 
death  in  657,  and  Bede  tells  us  that  within  three  years  after  he  had  slain  King  Penda,  Oswiu 
subjected  the  greater  part  of  the  Picts  to  the  dominion  of  the  Angles.  It  is  probable,  there- 
fore, that  he  claimed  their  submission  to  himself  as  the  cousin  and  heir  on  the  paternal  side 
of  their  king,  Talorcan,  and  enforced  his  claim  by  force  of  arms. 

22  Brudei  (Bredei,  or  Brude)  was  paternally  a  scion  of  the  royal  house  of  Alclyde,  his 
father,  Bili,  appearing  in  the  Welsh  genealogies  annexed  to  Nennius  as  the  son  of  Neithon 
and  father  of  that  Eugein  who  slew  Domnall  Brec  in  642.  His  mother  was  the  daughter  of 
Talorcan  mac  Ainfrait,  the  last  independent  king  of  the  Picts  before  they  were  subjected  by 
Oswiu. 


CHAPTER   XV 

THE   SCOTS   AND    PICTS 

THE  Scots  of  Dalriada  acquired  possession  of  the  peninsula  of  Kintyre 
and  adjacent  territory  in  Argyle  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century. 
About  503  Loarn  More,  son  of  Ere,  settled  there  with  his  brothers,  Angus 
and  Fergus,  and  some  of  their  followers.  They  came  from  Irish  Dalriada — 
a  district  in  Ireland  approximately  corresponding  to  or  included  in  the 
northern  portion  of  the  present  county  of  Antrim. 

Of  the  Scots  of  Ireland  we  have  frequent  mention  by  the  Roman  histor- 
ians. As  we  have  seen,  their  island  was  for  some  centuries  known  by  the 
name  of  Scotia,1  and  after  the  Scots  had  settled  in  Albania,  it  continued  to 
be  called  Scotia  Major  in  distinction  from  Scotia  Minor,  which  was  the  first 
form  of  the  present  name,  "  Scotland,"  as  applied  to  North  Britain. 

The  following  references  to  the  Scots  are  found  in  the  History  of  Ammi- 
anus  Marcellinus  (written  between  380  and  390),  and  they  are  the  first  ac- 
counts that  we  have  of  these  people  under  that  name,  although  they  may  have 
been  of  the  same  race  with  the  "  Hibernians  "  mentioned  by  Eumenius  in  296, 
who,  with  the  Picts,  were  said  by  him  to  have  been  the  hereditary  enemies  of 
the  Britons  in  Caesar's  time.  It  seems  more  probable,  however,  that  the 
term  "  Hibernians  "  was  first  applied  by  the  Romans  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Western  Scotland. 

These  were  the  events  which  took  place  in  Illyricum  and  in  the  East. 
But  the  next  year,  that  of  Constantius's  tenth  and  Julian's  third  consulship 
[a.d.  360],  the  affairs  of  Britain  became  troubled  in  consequence  of  the  in- 
cursions of  the  savage  nations  of  Picts  and  Scots,  who,  breaking  the  peace  to 
which  they  had  agreed,  were  plundering  the  districts  on  their  borders,  and 
keeping  in  constant  alarm  the  provinces  exhausted  by  former  disasters. — 
(Book  xx.,  ch.  i.) 

At  this  time  [a.d.  364],  the  trumpet,  as  it  were,  gave  signal  for  war 
throughout  the  whole  Roman  world ;  and  the  barbarian  tribes  on  our  fron- 
tier were  moved  to  make  incursions  on  those  territories  which  lay  nearest  to 
them.  The  Allemanni  laid  waste  Gaul  and  Rhaetia  at  the  same  time.  The 
Sarmatians  and  Quadi  ravaged  Pannonia.  The  Picts,  Scots,  Saxons,  and 
Attecotti  harassed  the  Britons  with  incessant  invasions.2 

It  will  be  sufficient  here  to  mention  that  at  that  time  [a.d.  368]  the  Picts, 
who  were  divided  into  two  nations,  the  Dicalidones  and  the  Vecturiones, 
and  likewise  the  Attecotti,  a  very  warlike  people,  and  the  Scots  were  all 
roving  over  different  parts  of  the  country,  and  committing  great  ravages. — 
(Book  xxvi.,  ch.  iv.) 

Theodosius,  father  of  the  emperor  of  that  name,  finally  succeeded  in  driv- 
ing the  invaders  north  of  Severus's  wall,  and  the  country  between  that  and 
the  Wall  of  Hadrian  was  added  to  the  Roman  Empire  about  368  as  the  fifth 
province  in  Britain,  and  called  Valentia,  after  the  reigning  emperor.     The 

199 


200  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

legions  becoming  reduced  by  the  revolt  of  Maximus  about  390,  however, 
further  incursions  of  the  Picts  and  Scots  took  place  ;  and  though  fresh 
troops  were  sent  against  them  and  the  territory  again  recovered,  the  final 
withdrawal  of  the  garrisons  during  the  next  twenty  years  left  the  province 
wellnigh  defenceless  and  exposed  to  the  raids  of  the  savages,  who  from  that 
time  on  broke  through  the  walls  with  impunity  and  overran  and  destroyed 
the  Roman  settlements  at  will  (Ammianus,  book  xxvii.,  ch.  viii.). 

The  early  attacks  on  Britain  by  the  Scots  seem  to  have  been  made  directly 
from  Ireland,  and  were  more  in  the  nature  of  predatory  forays  than  perma- 
nent territorial  conquests.     They  first  appear  to  have  come  through  Wales.' 

The  History  of  Nennius,  so-called 4  (a  mixture  of  fables  and  half-truths), 
tells  us  : 

§  n.  ^neas  reigned  over  the  Latins  three  years  ;  Ascanius,  thirty-three 
years  ;  after  whom  Silvius  reigned  twelve  years,  and  Posthumus  thirty-nine 
years  :  the  former,  from  whom  the  kings  of  Alba  are  called  Silvan,  was 
brother  to  Brutus,  who  governed  Britain  at  the  time  Eli,  the  high-priest, 
judged  Israel,  and  when  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  taken  by  a  foreign 
people.    But  Posthumus,  his  brother,  reigned  among  the  Latins.    [Fabulous.] 

§  12.  After  an  interval  of  not  less  than  eight  hundred  years,  came  the 
Picts,  and  occupied  the  Orkney  Islands  [?]  :  whence  they  laid  waste  many 
regions,  and  seized  those  on  the  left-hand  side  of  Britain,  where  they  still 
remain,  keeping  possession  of  a  third  part  of  Britain  to  this  day. 

§  13.     Long  after  this,  the  Scots  arrived  in  Ireland  from  Spain.  [?]    .    .    . 

§  14.  .  .  .  The  sons  of  Liethali  obtained  the  country  of  the  Dimetse 
where  is  a  city  called  Menavia  [St.  David's]  and  the  province  Guiher  and 
Cetguela  [Caer  Kidwelly,  in  Carmarthenshire],  which  they  held  till  they 
were  expelled  from  every  part  of  Britain,  by  Cunedda  and  his  sons. 

§  15.  .  .  .  The  Britons  came  to  Britain  in  the  third  age  of  the 
world  ;  and  in  the  fourth,  the  Scots  took  possession  of  Ireland.  The  Britons 
who,  suspecting  no  hostilities,  were  unprovided  with  the  means  of  defence, 
were  unanimously  and  incessantly  attacked,  both  by  the  Scots  from  the 
west  and  by  the  Picts  from  the  north.  A  long  interval  after  this,  the  Ro- 
mans obtained  the  empire  of  the  world. 

§  62.  .  .  .  The  great  king,  Mailcun,  reigned  among  the  Britons, 
i.  e.,  in  the  district  of  Guenedota,  because  his  great-great-grandfather  Cun- 
edda, with  his  twelve  sons,  had  come  before  from  the  left-hand  part,  i.  e., 
from  the  country  which  is  called  Manau  Gustodia,  one  hundred  and  forty- 
six  years  before  Mailcun  reigned,  and  expelled  the  Scots  with  much  slaugh- 
ter from  those  countries,  and  they  never  returned  again  to  inhabit  them. 

The  invasions  of  the  Scots  and  Picts  after  the  departure  of  the  Romans 
from  Britain  (418-426)  are  thus  described  by  Gildas,  who  wrote  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  sixth  century  : 

§  13.  At  length  also,  new  races  of  tyrants  sprang  up,  in  terrific  numbers, 
and  the  island,  still  bearing  its  Roman  name,  but  casting  off  her  institutes 
and  laws,  sent  forth  among  the  Gauls  that  bitter  scion  of  her  own  planting, 
Maximus,  with  a  great  number  of  followers,  and  the  ensigns  of  royalty, 
which  he  bore  without  decency  and  without  lawful  right,  but  in  a  tyrannical 
manner,  and  amid  the  disturbances  of  the  seditious  soldiery.     .     .     . 


The  Scots  and  Picts  201 

§  14.  After  this,  Britain  is  left  deprived  of  all  her  soldiery  and  armed 
bands,  of  her  cruel  governors,  and  of  the  flower  of  her  youth,  who  went  with 
Maximus,  but  never  again  returned  ;  and  utterly  ignorant  as  she  was  of  the 
art  of  war,  groaned  in  amazement  for  many  years  under  the  cruelty  of  two 
foreign  nations — the  Scots  from  the  northwest,  and  the  Picts  from  the  north. 

§  15.  The  Britons,  impatient  at  the  assaults  of  the  Scots  and  Picts,  their 
hostilities  and  dreaded  oppressions,  send  ambassadors  to  Rome  with  letters, 
entreating  in  piteous  terms  the  assistance  of  an  armed  band  to  protect  them, 
and  offering  loyal  and  ready  submission  to  the  authority  of  Rome,  if  they 
only  would  expel  their  invading  foes.  A  legion  is  immediately  sent,  forget- 
ting their  past  rebellion,  and  provided  sufficiently  with  arms.  When  they 
had  crossed  over  the  sea  and  landed,  they  came  at  once  to  close  conflict 
with  their  cruel  enemies,  and  slew  great  numbers  of  them.  All  of  them 
were  driven  beyond  the  borders,  and  the  humiliated  natives  rescued  from 
the  bloody  slavery  which  awaited  them.     .     .     . 

§  16.  The  Roman  legion  had  no  sooner  returned  home  in  joy  and  tri- 
umph, than  their  former  foes,  like  hungry  and  ravening  wolves,  rushing  with 
greedy  jaws  upon  the  fold  which  is  left  without  a  shepherd,  and  wafted  both 
by  the  strength  of  oarsmen  and  the  blowing  wind,  break  through  the  boun- 
daries, and  spread  slaughter  on  every  side,  and  like  mowers  cutting  down  the 
ripe  corn,  they  cut  up,  tread  under  foot,  and  overrun  the  whole  country. 

§  17.  And  now  again  they  send  suppliant  ambassadors,  with  their  gar- 
ments rent  and  their  heads  covered  with  ashes,  imploring  assistance  from  the 
Romans,  and  like  timorous  chickens,  crowding  under  the  protecting  wings  of 
their  parents,  that  their  wretched  country  might  not  altogether  be  destroyed, 
and  that  the  Roman  name  which  now  was  but  an  empty  sound  to  fill  the  ear, 
might  not  become  a  reproach  even  to  distant  nations.  Upon  this,  the  Ro- 
mans, moved  with  compassion,  as  far  as  human  nature  can  be,  at  the  relations 
of  such  horrors,  send  forward,  like  eagles  in  their  flight,  their  unexpected 
bands  of  cavalry  by  land  and  mariners  by  sea,  and  planting  their  terrible 
swords  upon  the  shoulders  of  their  enemies,  they  mow  them  down  like  leaves 
which  fall  at  the  destined  period  ;  and  as  a  mountain-torrent  swelled  with 
numerous  streams,  and  bursting  its  banks  with  roaring  noise,  with  foaming 
crest  and  yeasty  wave  rising  to  the  stars,  by  whose  eddying  currents  our 
eyes  are  as  it  were  dazzled,  does  with  one  of  its  billows  overwhelm  every 
obstacle  in  its  way,  so  did  our  illustrious  defenders  vigorously  drive  our 
enemies'  band  beyond  the  sea,  if  any  could  so  escape  them  ;  for  it  was  be- 
yond those  same  seas  that  they  transported,  year  after  year,  the  plunder  which 
they  had  gained,  no  one  daring  to  resist  them. 

§  1 8.  The  Romans,  therefore,  left  the  country,  giving  notice  that  they 
could  no  longer  be  harassed  by  such  laborious  expeditions,  nor  suffer  the  Ro- 
man standards,  with  so  large  and  brave  an  army,  to  be  worn  out  by  sea  and 
land  by  fighting  against  these  unwarlike,  plundering  vagabonds  ;  but  that  the 
islanders,  inuring  themselves  to  warlike  weapons,  and  bravely  fighting,  should 
valiantly  protect  their  country,  their  property,  wives,  and  children,  and,  what 
is  dearer  than  these,  their  liberty  and  lives.     .     .     . 

§  19.  No  sooner  were  they  gone,  than  the  Picts  and  Scots,  like  worms 
which  in  the  heat  of  mid-day  come  forth  from  their  holes,  hastily  land  again 
from  their  canoes,  in  which  they  had  been  carried  beyond  the  Cichican  val- 
ley, differing  one  from  another  in  manners,  but  inspired  with  the  same  avid- 
ity for  blood,  and  all  more  eager  to  shroud  their  villainous  faces  in  bushy 
hair  than  to  cover  with  decent  clothing  those  parts  of  their  body  which 
required  it.     Moreover,  having  heard  of  the  departure  of  our  friends,  and 


202  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

their  resolution  never  to  return,  they  seized  with  greater  boldness  than  before 
on  all  the  country  towards  the  extreme  north  as  far  as  the  wall.  To  oppose 
them  there  was  placed  on  the  heights  a  garrison  equally  slow  to  fight  and  ill 
adapted  to  run  away,  a  useless  and  panic-struck  company,  who  slumbered 
away  days  and  nights  on  their  unprofitable  watch.  Meanwhile  the  hooked 
weapons  of  their  enemies  were  not  idle,  and  our  wretched  countrymen  were 
dragged  from  the  wall  and  dashed  against  the  ground.  Such  premature 
death,  however,  painful  as  it  was,  saved  them  from  seeing  the  miserable  suf- 
ferings of  their  brothers  and  children.  But  why  should  I  say  more?  They 
left  their  cities,  abandoned  the  protection  of  the  wall,  and  dispersed  them- 
selves in  flight  more  desperately  than  before.  The  enemy,  on  the  other 
hand,  pursued  them  with  more  unrelenting  cruelty  than  before,  and 
butchered  our  countrymen  like  sheep,  so  that  their  habitations  were  like 
those  of  savage  beasts  ;  for  they  turned  their  arms  upon  each  other,  and  for 
the  sake  of  a  little  sustenance,  imbrued  their  hands  in  the  blood  of  their  fel- 
low countrymen.  Thus  foreign  calamities  were  augmented  by  domestic 
feuds  ;  so  that  the  whole  country  was  entirely  destitute  of  provisions,  save 
such  as  could  be  procured  in  the  chase. 

§  20.  Again,  therefore,  the  wretched  remnant,  sending  to  ^Etius,  a 
powerful  Roman  citizen,  address  him  as  follows  :  "  To  JEtius,  now  con- 
sul for  the  third  time:  the  groans  of  the  Britons."  And  again,  a  little 
further,  thus  :  "  The  barbarians  drive  us  to  the  sea  ;  the  sea  throws  us  back 
on  the  barbarians  :  thus  two  modes  of  death  await  us,  we  are  either  slain  or 
drowned."  The  Romans,  however,  could  not  assist  them,  and  in  the  mean- 
time the  discomfited  people,  wandering  in  the  woods,  began  to  feel  the  effects 
of  a  severe  famine,  which  compelled  many  of  them  without  delay  to  yield 
themselves  up  to  their  cruel  persecutors,  to  obtain  subsistence  ;  others  of 
them,  however,  lying  hid  in  mountains,  caves,  and  woods,  continually  sallied 
out  from  thence  to  renew  the  war.  And  then  it  was,  for  the  first  time,  that 
they  overthrew  their  enemies,  who  had  for  so  many  years  been  living  in 
their  country  ;  for  their  trust  was  not  in  man,  but  in  God  ;  according  to  the 
maxim  of  Philo,  "  We  must  have  divine  assistance,  when  that  of  man  fails." 
The  boldness  of  the  enemy  was  for  a  while  checked,  but  not  the  wicked- 
ness of  our  countrymen  ;  the  enemy  left  our  people,  but  the  people  did  not 
leave  their  sins. 

§  21.  For  it  has  always  been  a  custom  with  our  nation,  as  it  is  at  pres- 
ent, to  be  impotent  in  repelling  foes,  but  bold  and  invincible  in  raising  civil 
war,  and  bearing  the  burdens  of  their  offences.  They  are  impotent,  I  say, 
in  following  the  standard  of  peace  and  truth,  but  bold  in  wickedness  and 
falsehood.  The  audacious  invaders  therefore  return  to  their  winter  quar- 
ters, determined  before  long  again  to  return  and  plunder.  And  then,  too, 
the  Picts  for  the  first  time  seated  themselves  at  the  extremity  of  the  island, 
where  they  afterwards  continued,  occasionally  plundering  and  wasting  the 
country. 

As  already  stated,  about  the  year  503  the  sons  of  Ere,  a  descendant  of 
Cairbre  Riadhi  (founder  of  the  kingdom  of  Dalriada  in  the  northern  part  of 
the  present  county  Antrim),  passed  from  Ireland  to  Scotland  with  a  body 
of  their  followers,  and  established  a  government  over  some  of  their  country- 
men who  had  previously  settled  in  the  southwest  of  Argyle.  One  of  these 
sons,  Fergus  More,  succeeded  his  brother  Loarn  in  the  chiefship,  and  is 
generally  esteemed  the  founder  of  the  dynasty.6 


The  Scots  and  Picts  203 

Fergus  was  followed  by  his  son,  Domangart  (died  505),  by  the  latter's 
sons,  Comgall  (died  538)  and  Gabhran  (died  560),  and  by  Comgall'sson,  Co- 
nal  (died  574).  JEdan,  son  of  Gabhran,  seized  the  succession  after  the  death 
of  his  cousin,  Conal,  and  during  his  long  reign  did  much  to  increase  the 
power  and  influence  of  the  colony  and  to  create  a  respect  for  the  Scots'  arms, 
by  making  war  against  the  Picts,  the  Britons  of  Strathclyde,  and  the  Saxons." 
He  lived  to  see  his  dominion  independent  of  the  Irish  Dalriada,  to  which  it 
had  before  been  tributary,  and  is  usually  esteemed  the  founder  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Scots,  having  been  the  first  to  form  the  families  and  tribes- 
men of  his  race  into  a  compact  and  united  people. 

St.  Columba  settled  in  Iona  about  565,  and  the  colony  of  Dalriada  in  the 
time  of  JEdan  was,  in  consequence,  the  centre  and  chief  source  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  and  propaganda  in  Britain.  From  thence  missionaries  travelled 
to  many  parts  of  the  island  and  to  the  Continent  ;  and  the  conversion  of 
the  Gaelic  Picts  of  the  north  by  the  preaching  and  ministrations  of  Columba 
no  doubt  prepared  the  way  for  the  union  of  the  Scots  and  Picts,  which,  more 
than  two  centuries  later,  followed  the  conquering  career  of  the  most  renowned 
of  ^Edan's  successors. 

^Edan  ascended  the  throne  of  Dalriada  in  574  ;  or  perhaps  it  would  be 
more  correct  to  say  that  he  became  chief  of  the  Dalriad  tribe.  In  603  he  led 
a  numerous  force  —  recruited  largely  from  the  Britons  of  Strathclyde  — 
against  ^Ethelfrid,  the  Anglian  king  of  Bernicia.7  Meeting  him  in  Liddes- 
dale,  near  the  frontier  line  of  the  kingdoms  of  Bernicia  and  Strathclyde  (in 
the  present  Roxburghshire),  a  decisive  battle  was  fought  at  Degsastan,  which 
resulted  in  the  utter  defeat  and  rout  of  ^Edan's  army,  and  the  extension  of 
the  western  boundary  of  the  Anglian  kingdom  to  the  river  Esk.8  The  annal- 
ist, Tighernac,  records  ^dan's  death  in  606,  at  the  age  of  seventy-four. 

He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Eocha  Buidhe,  who  resigned  the  throne  to 
his  son,  Conadh  Cerr.  In  the  year  629,  the  latter  was  slain  in  the  battle  of 
Fedhaeoin,  fought  in  Ireland  between  the  Irish  Dalriads  and  the  Irish  Picts, 
or  Cruithne.  Both  parties  to  this  contest  received  auxiliaries  from  Scotland  ; 
Eocha  Buidhe  appears  also  in  this  battle,  on  the  side  of  the  Picts,  and  op- 
posed to  his  son,  Conadh,  the  leader  of  the  Dalriad  Scots.9  Mr.  Skene  infers 
from  this,  and  from  other  confirmatory  circumstances,  that  Eocha,  at  this 
time  having  withdrawn  from  Dalriada,  must  have  been  ruler  of  the  Gallo- 
way Picts.10     He  died  later  in  the  same  year. 

Domnall  Brecc,  or  Breac,  brother  to  Conadh  Cerr,  succeeded  to  the 
throne  of  Dalriada  on  the  death  of  the  latter.  In  634,  he  fought  the 
Northumbrians  at  Calathros  (now  Callender,  in  Stirlingshire),  and  was 
defeated.11  Three  years  later  he  was  again  defeated  with  great  loss  in 
the  battle  of  Mag  Rath,  in  Ireland,  whither  he  had  gone  as  an  ally  of  the 
Cruithne,  or  Irish  Picts,  in  their  contest  with  Domnall  mac  Aed,  king  of  the 
Irish  Dalriads.  In  638,  Tighernac  records  another  battle  and  defeat,  being 
that  of  Glinnemairison,  or  Glenmureson,  which    name  has  been  identified 


204  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

with  that  of  the  present  Mureston  Water,  south  of  the  river  Almond,  in 
the  parishes  of  Mid  and  West  Calder  (Edinburghshire).  As  the  siege  of 
Etin  (Edinburgh)  is  mentioned  in  the  same  reference,  and  as  this  was  the 
second  defeat  which  the  Dalriad  king  had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the 
Angles  within  the  space  of  four  years  in  contiguous  territory,  it  is  to  be  sup- 
posed that  these  battles  may  have  resulted  from  the  efforts  of  Domnall 
Brecc  to  dispossess  the  Angles  of  that  portion  of  their  dominions  in  or  near 
which  the  battles  were  fought.  The  battle  of  Degsastan,  near  the  Esk,  in 
603,  and  these  fights  on  both  sides  of  the  Avon  in  634  and  638,  would  seem 
to  fix  these  streams  as  at  that  time  marking  the  extremities  of  the  frontier 
line  between  Northumbria  and  Strathclyde." 

While  the  Britons  were  naturally  allied  with  the  Scots  in  these  wars  against 
the  common  enemy  of  both,  it  appears  that  the  circumstances  of  their  union 
were  not  otherwise  sufficiently  favorable  to  insure  more  than  the  temporary 
ascendancy  of  the  Dalriad  chief  as  their  leader  at  this  time.  It  is  possible 
he  may  have  taken  the  opportunity  of  his  leadership  as  an  occasion  for 
seeking  permanent  rule  ;  but  if  this  were  so,  he  could  not  have  met  with 
much  encouragement  from  the  Britons  ;  for  in  the  year  642,  Tighernac  tells 
us,  he  was  slain  at  Strathcawin  (or  Strath  Carron),  by  Oan,  king  of  the 
Britons.18 

In  654,  Penda,  king  of  the  Angles  of  Mercia,  with  his  British  or  North 
Welsh  allies,  was  defeated  by  Oswiu,  King  of  Northumbria,  in  a  battle  fought 
near  the  Firth  of  Forth.14  Penda  and  nearly  all  of  his  leaders  were  slain. 
This  victory  not  only  established  Oswiu  firmly  upon  the  Northumbrian 
throne,  but  also  enabled  him  to  bring  under  his  rule  the  dominions  of  the 
Strathclyde  Britons  and  of  the  Scots  and  Southern  Picts.15  In  672,  after 
Ecgfrid  had  succeeded  Oswiu  on  the  Northumbrian  throne,  the  Picts  at- 
tempted to  regain  their  independence,  but  without  success." 

After  the  death  of  Domnall  Brecc  in  642,  and  the  successes  of  Oswiu, 
which  must  indirectly  at  least  have  influenced  Dalriada,  that  kingdom  seems 
to  have  remained  for  a  long  time  broken  up  into  rival  clans,  the  Cinel 
Loarn,  or  Race  of  Loam,  and  the  Cinel  Gabhran  being  the  two  most  impor- 
tant.17 It  was  not  until  678  that  these  clans  again  appear  united  in  offensive 
warfare.  In  that  year  they  fought  against  the  Britons,  but  were  defeated.18 
Afterwards,  in  union  with  the  Picts,  they  seem  to  have  made  attempts  at 
recovering  their  independence,  and  so  far  succeeded  that  Ecgfrid,  then 
king  of  the  Northumbrians,  felt  obliged  to  enter  Pictland  with  an  invading 
army  to  reduce  them.  This  was  in  685.  On  June  20th  of  that  year  a  great 
battle  was  fought  at  Duin  Nechtan,  or  Nechtansmere  (Dunnichen,  in  For- 
farshire ?),  in  which  the  English  king  and  his  entire  force  perished.19 

"  From  that  time,"  in  the  words  of  Bede,  "  the  hopes  and  strength 
of  the  English  kingdom  began  to  waver  and  retrograde  ;  for  the  Picts  re- 
covered their  own  lands,  which  had  been  held  by  the  English  and  the  Scots 
that  were  in  battle,  and  some  of  the  Britons  their  liberty,  which  they  have 


The  Scots  and  Picts  205 

now  enjoyed  for  about  forty-six  years.  Among  the  many  English  who  then 
either  fell  by  the  sword,  or  were  made  slaves,  or  escaped  by  flight  out  of  the 
country  of  the  Picts,  the  most  reverend  man  of  God,  Trumwine,  who  had 
been  made  bishop  over  them,  withdrew  with  his  people  that  were  in  the 
monastery  of  Abercurnig." 

The  king  of  the  Picts  at  this  time  was  an  Anglo-Briton,  Brudei,  son  of 
Bili,  King  of  Strathclyde,"  and  grandson  through  his  mother  of  that  Pictish 
king,  Talorcan,  who  was  called  the  son  of  Ainfrait  (Eanfrid),  the  Angle. 
Ainfrait  was  the  brother  of  King  Oswiu,  and  uncle  to  King  Ecgfrid.  On  the 
death  of  ^Ethelfrid,  father  to  Ainfrait  and  Oswiu,  in  617,  his  throne  had  been 
seized  by  ^Edwine.  Bede  tells  us  21  that  during  all  the  time  King  ^Edwine 
reigned  in  Northumbria,  Ainfrait,  with  his  brothers  and  many  of  the 
nobility,  lived  in  banishment  among  the  Scots,  or  Picts. 

During  the  forty-six  years  between  the  defeat  of  the  Angles  at  Nechtans- 
mere  and  the  period  at  which  Bede's  history  is  brought  to  a  close,  two  con- 
flicts took  place  between  the  Dalriads  and  the  Strathclyde  Britons,  in  both 
of  which  the  latter  were  defeated."  These  occurred  in  the  neighboring 
territories  of  the  Picts,  during  the  reign  of  Nechtan,  son  of  Derili,  who  ruled 
from  before  710  to  724.  It  was  this  Nechtan  who,  as  Bede  states,"  was  per- 
suaded to  forsake  the  teachings  and  customs  of  the  Scottish  Church,  which 
had  been  established  in  Pictland  by  St.  Columba,  and  to  conform  to  those 
of  Rome.  In  717  he  expelled  the  Columban  priests  from  his  kingdom  and 
gave  their  possessions  and  places  to  such  of  the  clergy  as  had  conformed  to 
Rome. 

Shortly  after  this  date,  Selbhac,  son  of  Farchar  Fata,  and  leader  of  the 
Dalriad  tribe  known  as  Cinel  Loarn,  seems  to  have  obtained  the  ascend- 
ancy over  the  rival  tribe  of  Gabhran,  and  succeeded  in  uniting  the  Dalriad 
Scots  again  into  one  great  clan,  of  which  he  became  the  head.  Selbhac  is 
the  first  chief  after  the  death  of  Domnall  Brecc  in  642  to  acquire  the  title  of 
King  of  Dalriada.  In  723  he  resigned  the  throne  to  his  son,  Dungal,  and 
became  a  cleric. 

In  724,  Nechtan,  king  of  the  Picts,  also  having  become  a  cleric,  was 
succeeded  by  Druxst  (or  Drust).  The  latter  was  expelled  from  Pictland  in 
726  by  Alpin,  son  of  Eachaidh  (or  Eachach)  by  a  Pictish  princess.84  At 
the  same  time,  Dungal,  the  Cinel  Loarn  chieftain,  who  occupied  the  throne 
of  Dalriada,  was  expelled  from  that  dominion  and  succeeded  by  Eochaidh 
(or  Eochach),  the  head  of  the  rival  Scottish  clan  Gabhran.  Eochaidh  was 
a  brother  or  half-brother  to  Alpin,  then  king  of  the  Picts,  both  being  sons 
of  Eachaidh,  Domnall  Brecc's  grandson.96 

Dungal's  father,  Selbhac,  in  727,  made  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to 
restore  his  son  to  the  Scottish  throne,  but  Eochaidh  seems  to  have  con- 
tinued in  power  until  733,  in  which  year  Tighernac  records  his  death. 

In  Pictavia  also,  at  this  time,  the  right  to  the  throne  was  disputed  by 
several  powerful  rivals.     Nechtan,  who  had  resigned  his  rule  to  Druxst  in 


206  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

order  that  he  himself  might  experiment  with  monastic  life,  now  returned  to 
contest  the  claims  of  Alpin,  the  Dalriadic  aspirant  who  had  driven  out 
Nechtan's  legatee.  Angus  of  Fortrenn,  son  of  Fergus,  also  appeared  as 
a  claimant.  Alpin  was  defeated  by  Angus  in  a  battle  fought  in  728  at 
Monaigh  Craebi  (Moncrieff),  and  the  territory  west  of  the  river  Tay  was 
lost  to  him  in  consequence.  Not  long  afterwards,  Nechtan  also  met  Alpin 
in  battle  at  Scone,  completely  overthrew  his  forces  and  partially  recovered 
the  Pictish  kingdom  and  title  for  himself.88 

In  729  Angus  and  Nechtan  met  and  contested  for  the  supreme  leader- 
ship. A  battle  was  fought  at  Loch  Inch,  near  the  river  Spey,  which  resulted 
in  the  defeat  and  rout  of  Nechtan's  forces  and  the  assumption  of  kingly 
authority  and  title  by  Angus.  Soon  after  this  battle,  Angus  encountered 
and  slew  Druxst ;  and  in  732,  the  last  of  his  rivals  was  removed  by  the  death 
of  Nechtan.     Angus  ruled  Pictland  for  thirty  years. 

In  733,  Eochaidh,  King  of  Dalriada,  having  died,  Selbhac's  son,  Dungal, 
regained  the  throne  of  that  kingdom.  During  the  next  year,  Dungal  having 
aroused  the  anger  of  Angus  by  an  attack  upon  the  latter's  son,  Brude,  the 
Pictish  king  invaded  Dalriada,  and  put  its  ruler  to  flight.  Two  years  later 
(in  736),  Angus  destroyed  the  Scots'  city  of  Creic,  and  taking  possession  of 
Donad,  the  capital,  he  laid  waste  all  Dalriada,  put  in  chains  the  two  sons  of 
Selbhac,27  and  appears  to  have  driven  out  the  fighting  men  of  the  two  leading 
clans.  One  of  these,  the  Cinel  Loam,  was  then  under  the  chiefship  of 
Muredach,  and  the  other,  the  Cinel  Gabhran,  was  ruled  by  that  Alpin  mac 
Eachaidh  who  had  been  driven  from  the  Pictish  throne  by  Nechtan  in  728. 
Both  of  these  chieftains  attempted  to  free  their  country  from  the  grasp  of 
the  invader  by  carrying  the  war  into  Pictland.  Muredach  fought  the  Picts 
on  the  banks  of  the  Avon  (at  Carriber),  where  he  was  opposed  by  Talorgan, 
brother  to  Angus,  and  was  completely  defeated  and  routed  by  that  lieu- 
tenant.38 Alpin  himself,  about  1740,  likewise  invaded  Ayrshire,  the  country 
of  the  Galloway  Picts,  and  though  he  succeeded  in  "  laying  waste  the  lands 
of  the  Galwegians,"  he  met  his  death  the  following  year  while  in  their  ter- 
ritories.29 In  the  same  year  in  which  Alpin  was  killed  (741),  Angus  is  said 
to  have  completed  the  conquest  of  Dalriada.  Its  subjection  to  the  Picts 
must  have  continued  at  least  during  the  period  of  his  life. 

The  existing  authentic  records  for  the  century  following  the  death  of 
Alpin  in  741  give  but  little  information  as  to  Dalriada,  beyond  the  names  of 
some  of  its  clan  chieftains.  It  may  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have  remained 
during  that  time  a  subject  state  of  the  then  powerful  Pictish  kingdom. 

Simeon  of  Durham  tells  us  that  a  battle  was  fought  in  744  between  the 
Picts  and  the  Britons,30  and  in  750,  the  Picts,  under  the  leadership  of  Talor- 
gan, the  brother  of  Angus,  met  the  Britons  in  a  great  battle  at  Magedauc' 
(in  Dumbartonshire),  in  which  Talorgan  was  slain.31  Eadberht,  Anglic  king 
of  Northumbria,  in  750,  added  to  his  Galloway  possessions  the  plain  of  Kyle 
(in  Ayrshire)  and  "adjacent  regions."     He  formed  an  alliance  with  Angus 


The  Scots  and  Picts  207 

a  few  years  later  against  the  Britons  of  Strathclyde,  and  in  756  received 
the  submission  of  that  kingdom.8* 

Five  years  later  (761)  Angus  mac  Fergus  died,  and  his  brother,  Brude, 
came  to  the  Pictish  throne.  He  died  in  763,  and  was  succeeded  by  Ciniod 
(Kenneth),  son  of  Wirdech,  who  reigned  twelve  years."  Alpin,  son  of 
Wroid,  followed  Kenneth,  and  his  death  is  recorded  in  780  as  king  of  the 
Saxons,34  which  would  seem  to  point  to  his  acquisition  of  more  or  less  of  the 
Northumbrian  territory  south  of  the  Forth. 

Drust,  son  of  Talorgan,  succeeded  Alpin,  and  reigned  for  five  years,  his 
succession  being  disputed  by  Talorgan,  son  of  Angus,  who  also  reigned  in 
part  of  the  Pictish  kingdom  for  two  years  and  a  half.  Conal,  son  of  Tarla, 
then  held  the  throne  for  about  five  years,  when  he  was  overthrown  and  suc- 
ceeded by  Constantine,  son  of  Fergus.86 

Conal  fled  to  Dalriada,  then  under  the  government  of  Constantine,  son  of 
Domnall,  whom  he  seems  later  to  have  succeeded,  for  in  807  Conal's  assassina- 
tion is  reported  as  that  of  one  of  the  rulers  of  Dalriada.  After  that  date  the  name 
of  Constantine,  son  of  Fergus,  appears  as  King  of  Dalriada  for  the  nine  years 
following,  so  that  during  that  period  this  kingdom  was  doubtless  united  with 
Pictland  under  the  one  ruler.    The  two  Constantines  may  have  been  identical. 

For  some  years  after  816  Constantine's  brother,  Angus  mac  Fergus  (2d), 
governed  Dalriada,  and  on  the  death  of  the  former  in  820,  Angus  succeeded 
him  as  ruler  over  both  kingdoms.  After  825  Dalriada  was  governed  by  Aed, 
son  of  Boanta  ;  and  then  for  a  term  by  Angus's  own  son,  Eoganan. 

In  834  Angus  died,  when  Drust,  son  of  Constantine,  and  Talorgan,  son  of 
Wthoil,  are  said  to  have  reigned  jointly  for  the  space  of  two  or  three  years, 
the  former  probably  ruling  the  Southern  Picts,  and  the  latter  those  of  the 
North.  It  is  likely  that  this  joint  reign  arose  from  a  disputed  succession,  for 
about  the  same  time  another  aspirant  to  the  throne  appeared  in  the  person 
of  Alpin,  who  was  called  king  of  the  Scots,  and  apparently  must  have 
claimed  title  to  the  Pictish  throne  through  maternal  descent.  He  fought 
the  Picts  near  Dundee  in  834,  and  was  successful  in  his  first  battle  ;  but 
later  in  the  same  year  was  defeated  and  slain.88 

In  836  Eoganan,  son  of  Angus,  is  recorded  in  the  Pictish  Chronicle  as 
the  successor  to  Drust  and  Talorgan.  He  reigned  for  three  years,  and  in 
839  was  slain  by  the  Danes,  who  had  invaded  the  kingdom.  On  his  death, 
Kenneth  (son  of  Alpin,  king  of  the  Scots),  who  had  been  chief  of  the  Dal- 
riad  clans  since  the  death  of  his  father  in  834,  made  war  against  the  Picts. 
Taking  advantage  of  the  presence  of  the  Danish  pirates,  and  perhaps  pos- 
sessing some  inherited  title  to  the  Pictish  throne,  he  succeeded  in  establish- 
ing himself  first  as  the  supreme  ruler  of  Dalriada  (839)  and  then,  four  or 
five  years  later,  became  also  the  king  of  the  Picts.87  Between  the  death  of 
Eoganan  and  the  accession  of  Kenneth  mac  Alpin,  there  were  two  inter- 
mediate kings  of  Pictland.  These  were  Wrad,  son  of  Bargoit,  who  reigned 
three  years,  and  Bred,  son  of  Ferat,  who  reigned  one  year. 


208  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

When  Kenneth  mac  Alpin  became  king  of  the  Picts  in  844,  his  territories 
embraced  that  part  of  Scotland  now  included  in  the  counties  of  Perth,  Fife, 
Stirling,  Dumbarton,  and  Argyle.38  North  and  west  of  this  district  the 
country  continued  in  a  state  of  practical  independence  for  a  long  time  after- 
ward, being  in  part  occupied  by  the  Northern  Picts,  and  in  part  by  the 
Norsemen.  South  of  Kenneth's  territories  the  Northumbrian  Angles  occu- 
pied the  province  of  Bernicia,  which  included  most  of  the  present  counties 
of  Scotland  south  of  the  Forth  and  east  of  the  Avon  and  Esk.  They  also 
maintained  lordship  over  part  of  the  district  now  known  as  Galloway  and 
Ayr.  The  Cymric  Britons  of  Strathclyde  lived  and  ruled  where  are  now  the 
counties  of  Renfrew,  Lanark,  Dumfries,  Peebles  (Clydesdale,  Nithsdale,  and 
Annandale)  ;  the  adjacent  portions  of  Ayr  and  Galloway  and  also  for  a  con- 
siderable distance  to  the  south  of  Solway  Firth. 

The  reasons  for  the  success  of  Kenneth  in  establishing  himself  and  the 
small  and  numerically  insignificant 39  colony  of  Dalriad  Scots  who  inhabited 
the  southwestern  portion  of  Argyle  as  the  ruling  element  in  the  land  of  the 
Picts  have  never  been  very  clearly  understood.  Superior  prowess,40  mater- 
nal ancestry,41  favorable  matrimonial  alliances,42  the  labors  of  missionaries,48 
the  wars  of  the  Picts  with  other  intruders,44  the  higher  culture  of  the  Scots,4* 
and  various  other  causes  have  been  surmised  and  assigned  in  explanation. 
Our  present  knowledge  of  the  period  will  not  justify  more  than  a  tentative 
acceptance  of  these  several  theories  as  a  whole,  with  the  allowance  that  each 
one  probably  accounts  in  part,  or,  might  account  in  part,  for  the  result. 

Kenneth  died  in  858,  and  his  brother  Donald  succeeded  him,  who  reigned 
four  years.  On  Donald's  death,  Constantine,  the  son  of  Kenneth,  came 
to  the  throne.  After  a  reign  of  some  fifteen  years,  he  was  killed  in  battle 
with  the  Norsemen,  who  fought  the  Scots 46  at  Inverdufatha  (Inverdovet) 
near  the  Firth  of  Forth,  in  876-7.  Constantine  was  succeeded  by  his  brother, 
Aedh,  or  Hugh,  who  reigned  as  king  of  the  Picts  for  one  year,  when  he  was 
killed  by  his  own  people. 

While,  under  the  law  of  Tanistry,  which  governed  the  descent  of  the 
crown  among  the  Scots,  Donald,  son  of  Constantine,  was  entitled  to  rule,  yet 
by  the  Pictish  law,  Eocha  (son  of  Constantine's  sister  and  of  Run,  king  of 
the  Britons  of  Strathclyde)  was  the  next  heir ;  and  as  the  Pictish  party  at 
this  time  seems  to  have  been  in  the  ascendancy,  Eocha  was  made  king. 
Being  too  young  to  reign,  however,  another  king  was  associated  with  him  as 
governor.47  This  governor,  or  regent,  was  Grig,  or  Ciric,  son  of  Dungaile. 
While  the  earlier  Pictish  Chronicle  gives  no  account  of  this  reign  beyond 
the  statement  that  after  a  period  of  eleven  years  Eocha  and  Grig  were  both 
expelled  from  the  kingdom,  the  later  writers  have  made  a  popular  hero  of 
Grig ;  and  his  virtues  and  achievements  are  magnified  to  most  gigantic 
proportions.48  Grig,  having  been  forced  to  abdicate,  was  succeeded  in  889 
by  Donald,  son  of  Constantine,  who  reigned  for  eleven  years.  Donald 
was  also  chosen  as  King  of  Strathclyde,  which  henceforth  continued  to  re- 


/  OF  THE  \\ 

|  UNIVERSITY  j 

\vc^LFFOP^/ The  Scots  and  Picts  209 

ceive  its  princes  from  the  reigning  Scottish  family  until  it  was  finally  merged 
into  the  Scottish  kingdom.  During  Donald's  reign  his  kingdom  ceased  to 
be  called  Pictland  or  Pictavia  and  became  known  as  the  kingdom  of  Alban 
or  Albania,  and  its  rulers  were  no  longer  called  kings  of  the  Picts,  but 
kings  of  Alban."  Donald  was  slain  in  battle  with  the  Danes,  probably  at 
Dunotter  in  Kincardineshire.50 

From  900  to  942  the  throne  was  held  by  Constantine,  son  of  Aedh,  and 
cousin  to  Donald.  During  his  reign,  ^Ethelstan,  King  of  Mercia,  became 
ruler  of  Wessex  (in  925),  and  at  once  set  about  to  extend  his  power  northward 
from  the  Humber.  He  first  arranged  for  a  marriage  between  his  sister  and 
Sihtric,  the  Danish  ruler  of  Deira,  the  southern  province  of  Northumbria. 
On  Sihtric's  death  (926),  ^Ethelstan  immediately  seized  his  kingdom  and  an- 
nexed it  to  his  own,  driving  out  Guthferth,  the  son  of  Sihtric,  who  had  suc- 
ceeded his  father,  and  forming  an  alliance  for  peace  with  Ealdred,  ruler  of 
Bernicia,  the  northern  province  of  Northumbria,  and  with  Constantine,  King 
of  Alban."  A  little  later,  however,  Aulaf,  or  Olaf,  the  eldest  son  of  Sihtric, 
having  in  the  meantime  married  King  Constantine's  daughter,  and  thereby 
secured  the  co-operation  of  the  Scottish  ruler,  succeeded  also  in  enlisting 
in  his  behalf  Olaf  of  Dublin,  a  leader  of  the  Danes,  or  Ostmen,  of  Ireland, 
and  Owin,  king  of  the  Cumbrians.63  Together  these  allies  prepared  for  an 
attempt  to  recover  Olaf's  heritage.  But  ^Ethelstan,  anticipating  them,  in- 
vaded Alban  by  sea  and  land  and  ravaged  a  great  part  of  that  kingdom.68 

Three  years  afterwards  the  confederated  forces  again  assembled  and 
made  a  descent  upon  Deira.  At  first  they  were  successful  in  their  attacks, 
but  finally  encountered  ^Ethelstan  with  all  his  army  on  the  field  of  Brunan- 
burgh,  and  there  fought  the  great  battle  which  takes  its  name  from  that 
place.  ^Ethelstan  was  victorious  and  drove  the  allied  forces  of  the  Scots 
and  Danes  from  the  field  with  great  losses,  among  the  slain  being  the  son  of 
the  Alban  king,  with  many  of  his  bravest  leaders.64 

In  942  Constantine,  having  retired  to  a  monastery,  was  succeeded  by 
Malcolm,  son  of  Donald,  who  also  acquired  sovereignty  over  Cumbria,66  and 
reigned  until  954,  when  he  was  killed  in  a  battle  with  the  Norsemen  near 
Fodresach,  now  Fetteresso,  in  Kincardineshire.  The  next  king,  Indulf,  was 
also  killed  by  the  Norsemen  in  962,  at  Cullen,  in  Banffshire.66  During  his 
reign  the  kingdom  seems  first  to  have  been  extended  south  of  the  Forth, 
Edinburgh  for  a  time  being  added  to  its  territory.  Duff,  or  Dubh,  son  of 
Malcolm,  next  occupied  the  throne,  but  he  was  expelled  about  967  by 
Cuilean,  or  Colin,  son  of  Indulf,  who  succeeded  him  as  king,  and  was  slain 
himself  four  years  later  (971)  in  a  quarrel  with  the  Strathclydensians. 

Kenneth  II.,  brother  of  Duff,  and  son  of  the  first  Malcolm,  then  gained 
the  crown.  He  is  said  to  have  greatly  ravaged  the  territory  of  the  Strath- 
clyde  Welsh  ;  and  then,  in  order  to  protect  himself  against  their  counter- 
attacks, to  have  fortified  the  fords  of  the  river  Forth,  which  separated  the 
two  kingdoms.67     Immediately    after   his    attack  on    Strathclyde,  he    also 


210  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

invaded  Saxonia,  as  the  northern  part  of  Northumbria  was  then  called.  The 
following  year,  Kenneth  MacMalcolm  made  a  second  attempt  against  the 
same  district.  At  that  time,  Domnall,  or  Dunwallaun,  son  of  Eoain,  was  king 
of  the  Strathclyde  Britons.58  Edinburgh  is  supposed  to  have  been  permanently 
ceded  to  the  Scots  during  the  reign  of  Kenneth  MacMalcolm,  as  a  result  of  his 
continued  operations  against  the  territory  south  of  the  Forth.69  Kenneth 
was  slain  by  some  of  his  subjects  at  Fettercairn  in  Kincardineshire,  995.80 

He  was  succeeded  by  Constantine,  son  of  Colin  Maclndulf,  who,  after  a 
reign  of  two  years,  was  killed  by  Kenneth  MacMalcolm  (2d)  and  succeeded 
by  Kenneth  MacDufT  (Kenneth  III.),  surnamed  Grim,  who  retained  the 
throne  for  some  eight  or  nine  years. 

In  997,  the  death  of  Malcolm  MacDonald,  king  of  the  northern  Britons, 
is  recorded." 

Kenneth  MacDuff  was  defeated  in  battle  and  slain  at  Strathern  in  1005, 
by  his  cousin,  Malcolm,  son  of  King  Kenneth  MacMalcolm.  He  was  known 
as  Malcolm  II.,  or  Malcolm  MacKenneth,  and  reigned  from  1005  until  1034, 
when  he  is  said  to  have  been  assassinated  at  Glamis,  in  Angus.  He  is  ac- 
cused of  having  procured,  about  1033,  the  death  of  a  son  of  Boete  MacKen- 
neth, and  grandson  of  Kenneth  II.  (or  of  Kenneth  HI.)62  The  claim  of 
Kenneth  MacDuff's  grandson  to  the  crown,  under  the  Pictish  law  of  suc- 
cession,* was  superior  to  that  of  King  Malcolm's  own  grandson,  Duncan. 
In  1006,  shortly  after  the  commencement  of  his  reign,  King  Malcolm  II. 
invaded  Northumbria,  but  was  defeated  and  driven  out  with  the  loss  of 
many  of  his  best  warriors.88  Twelve  years  later  (1018),  in  conjunction  with 
Owen  the  Bald,  king  of  the  Strathclyde  Britons,  Malcolm  made  a  second 
attempt  against  Northumbria,  which  proved  more  successful.  In  a  battle 
fought  at  Carham,  on  the  Tweed,  he  defeated  the  Northumbrians  and  Danes 
with  great  loss.64  In  consequence,  they  were  obliged  to  cede  to  the  victor 
all  of  Northumbria  lying  north  of  the  Tweed,  which  territory  from  that  time 
became  a  part  of  Scotland.85 

The  kingdom  of  Strathclyde,  or  Cumbria,  also,  was  now  completely  ab- 
sorbed into  Scotland.  Its  ruler,  Owen,  having  been  slain  in  the  year  of  the 
battle  of  Carham,  the  union  with  Scotland  took  place  through  the  succession 
of  Duncan,  grandson  of  Malcolm,  to  the  lordship  of  Strathclyde.  For  that 
portion  of  his  domain  which  extended  south  from  the  Solway  Firth,  to  the 
river  Ribble,  in  Lancashire,  Duncan  continued  to  do  homage  to  the  King  of 
England,  as  his  predecessors  before  him  had  done,  since  the  time  (945)  when 
the  English  king,  Eadmund,  had  given  it  "  all  up  to  Malcolm,  king  of  the 
Scots,  on  condition  that  he  should  be  his  fellow-worker  as  well  by  sea  as  by 
land."  88  This  Prince  Duncan  was  the  son  of  Bethoc,  or  Beatrice,  Malcolm's 
daughter,  who  had  married  Crinan  of  the  House  of  Athol,  lay  Abbot  of 
Dunkeld,  said  by  Fordun  to  have  been  also  the  Steward  of  the  Isles.     On 

*  The  early  Picts  had  no  institution  of  marriage,  succession  passing  through  the  maternal 
line  alone.     See  note  n,  p.  196. 


The  Scots  and  Picts  2 1 1 

the  death  of  Malcolm,  his  grandfather,  in  1034,  Duncan,  King  of  Strathclyde, 
ascended  the  Scottish  throne,  thus  completely  uniting  the  subkingdom  of 
Strathclyde  with  Scotia. 

Another  daughter  of  Malcolm  had  been  given  in  marriage  to  Sigurd,  the 
Norse  jarl,  ruler  of  the  Orkney  Islands.  By  her  Sigurd  had  a  son,  Thorfinn, 
cousin  to  Duncan,  born  about  1009,  who,  on  the  death  of  his  father,  some 
five  years  later,  succeeded  to  the  lordship  of  Caithness,  Sutherland,  and 
other  districts,  including  Galloway.67  In  this  capacity,  he  was  also  over-lord 
of  the  tributary  provinces  of  Moray  and  Ross,  which  at  the  time  of  Earl 
Sigurd's  death  were  ruled  over  by  the  Mormaor  Finleikr,  or  Finley  (father 
of  Macbeth).88 

Duncan,  king  of  the  Scots,  married  the  sister69  of  Siward,  the  Danish 
Earl  of  Northumbria;  and  reigned  for  about  five  years.  He  became  involved 
in  a  war  with  his  cousin,  Thorfinn,  over  the  sovereignty  of  the  northern  dis- 
tricts of  Scotland,  and  was  slain  at  Bothgowan  in  1039-40  by  Macbeth,  who 
had  by  that  time  succeeded  to  the  mormaorship  of  Ross  and  Moray.70  Upon 
the  supposed  circumstances  of  Duncan's  tragic  death,  as  depicted  by  Boece 
and  copied  by  Holinshed,  Shakspeare  constructed  his  play  of  Macbeth. 

Before  going  into  the  details  of  that  tragedy,  it  will  be  well  to  pause 
and  take  a  glance  at  the  surroundings  and  condition  of  the  Scottish  king- 
dom at  the  beginning  of  Duncan's  brief  reign.  There  are  three  things 
connected  with  the  preceding  reign  of  his  grandfather,  Malcolm  II.,  which 
mark  it  as  a  distinctive  and  important  epoch  in  Scottish  history.  The  first 
and  most  notable  of  these  was  the  cession  to  Malcolm  by  its  Danish  ruler  of 
that  portion  of  the  Anglo-Danish  kingdom  of  Northumbria  known  as  Lothian 
—  being  all  that  part  of  eastern  Scotland  lying  north  of  the  Tweed  and  south 
of  the  Forth.  This  cession  resulted  from  the  victory  of  the  Scots  at  Carham 
in  1018,  to  which  allusion  has  already  been  made.71  The  next  important 
event  was  the  marriage  of  Malcolm's  daughter  with  Sigurd,  the  Norse  over- 
lord of  the  northern  regions  of  Scotland,  and  the  establishment  of  their  son, 
Thorfinn,  as  ruler  of  that  domain  on  the  death  of  his  father.  This  marriage 
eventually  proved  to  be  an  effective  step  toward  bringing  the  whole  country 
north  of  "  Scot's  Water,"  7a  under  the  rule  of  one  king.  The  third  event 
was  the  accession  of  Duncan  to  the  kingship  or  lordship  of  Strathclyde  after 
the  death  of  Owen  the  Bald,  in  1018,  and  the  subsequent  peaceful  union  of 
that  kingdom  with  Scotland  on  the  ascension  of  Duncan  to  the  Scottish 
throne.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  to  give  a  brief  summary  of  the  circumstances 
leading  up  to  this  conjunction  of  conditions  which  ultimately  resulted  in  the 
amalgamation  of  the  various  racial  elements  of  Scotland  into  one  people. 
The  Cumbrian  and  Norse  districts  will  first  be  taken  up,  as  being  more  inti- 
mately associated  with  the  history  of  Malcolm's  nearest  male  heirs  ;  and  the 
Anglo-Danish  province  will  afterwards  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
reign  of  Duncan's  son,  Malcolm  Canmore  —  in  whom  its  possession  may  be 
said  first  to  have  been  definitely  confirmed.7* 


212  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XV. 

1  Ireland  is  first  mentioned  as  being  also  called  Scotia  by  Isadore  of  Seville,  580-600. 

2  The  first  recorded  appearance  of  the  Saxons  off  the  coast  of  Gaul  is  in  A.D.  287. 
Eutropius,  ixM  21.     {Monum.  Hist.  Brit.,  p.  lxxii.) 

The  boats  of  Irish  pirates — or,  as  they  were  then  called,  Scots — ravaged  its  western 
shores,  while  a  yet  more  formidable  race  of  freebooters  pillaged  from  Portsmouth  to  the 
Wash.  In  their  homeland  between  the  Elbe  and  the  Ems,  as  well  as  in  a  wide  tract  across 
the  Ems  to  the  Rhine,  a  number  of  German  tribes  had  drawn  together  into  the  people  of  the 
Saxons,  and  it  was  to  this  people  that  the  pirates  of  the  Channel  belonged. — J.  R.  Green, 
Making  of  England,  p.  15. 

3  ' '  We  learn  from  the  account  given  by  the  historian  of  their  eventual  recovery,  that  the 
districts  ravaged  by  the  Picts  were  those  extending  from  the  territories  of  the  independent 
tribes  to  the  Wall  of  Hadrian  between  the  Tyne  and  the  Solway,  and  that  the  districts  occu- 
pied by  the  Scots  were  in  a  different  direction.  They  lay  on  the  western  frontier,  and  con- 
sisted of  part  of  the  mountain  region  of  Wales  on  the  coast  opposite  to  Ierne,  or  the  island  of 
Ireland,  from  whence  they  came. 

"  Unaided  as  she  was  left,  Britain  held  bravely  out  as  soon  as  her  first  panic  was  over  ; 
and  for  some  thirty  years  after  the  withdrawal  of  the  legions  the  free  province  maintained  an 
equal  struggle  against  her  foes.  Of  these  she  probably  counted  the  Saxons  as  still  the  least 
formidable.  The  freebooters  from  Ireland  were  not  only  scourging  her  western  coast,  but 
planting  colonies  at  points  along  its  line.  To  the  north  of  the  Firth  of  Clyde  these  "  Scots" 
settled  about  this  time  in  the  peninsula  of  Argyle.  To  the  south  of  it  they  may  have  been 
the  Gaels,  who  mastered  and  gave  their  name  to  Galloway  ;  and  there  are  some  indications 
that  a  larger  though  a  less  permanent  settlement  was  being  made  in  the  present  North  Wales." 
— Green,  Making  of  England,  p.  23. 

4  Written  not  long  before  the  ninth  century,  and,  so  far  as  its  record  of  earlier  events 
goes,  chiefly  useful  in  giving  us  the  form  in  which  they  were  current  in  the  time  of  the 
author. 

5  Though,  as  we  have  seen,  his  eldest  brother  Loarn  ruled  before  him,  yet  Fergus  holds 
a  more  conspicuous  position  as  the  father  of  the  dynasty,  since  it  was  his  descendants,  and 
not  those  of  Loarn,  who  afterwards  ruled  in  Dalriada.  It  is  in  him,  too,  that  the  scanty 
broken  traces  of  genuine  history  join  the  full  current  of  the  old  fabulous  conventional  history 
of  Scotland.  Thus  Fergus  may  be  identified  with  Fergus  II. — the  fortieth  king  of  Scotland, 
according  to  Buchanan  and  the  older  historians.  This  identity  has  served  to  show  with  sin- 
gular clearness  the  simple  manner  in  which  the  earlier  fabulous  race  of  Scots  kings  was  in- 
vented. A  Fergus  was  still  the  father  of  the  monarchy,  but  to  carry  back  the  line  to  a 
respectable  antiquity,  a  preceding  Fergus  was  invented,  who  reigned  more  than  300  years 
before  Christ  —  much  about  the  time  when  Babylon  was  taken  by  Alexander,  as  Buchanan 
notices.  To  fill  up  the  intervening  space  between  the  imaginary  and  the  actual  Fergus, 
thirty-eight  other  monarchs  were  devised,  whose  portraits  may  now  be  seen  in  the  picture- 
gallery  of  Holyrood. — Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  287. 

6  Wales,  or  the  country  of  the  Cymri,  at  this  time  extended  from  the  Severn  to  the 
Clyde,  and  comprised  all  modern  Wales,  Cheshire,  Lancashire,  part  of  Westmoreland,  Cum- 
berland, Dumfriesshire,  Ayrshire,  Lanarkshire,  and  Renfrewshire.  Novantia,  however,  re- 
mained Pictish — i,  e.,  Goidelic — in  speech  and  race.  Thus,  whatever  had  been  the  affinity 
in  earlier  centuries  between  the  Selgovae  of  Dumfriesshire  and  the  Novantae,  or  Attecotts,  of 
Galloway,  it  had  been  replaced  in  the  sixth  century  by  hereditary  racial  enmity.  Galloway 
was  peopled  by  Attecott  Picts  ;  Annandale,  Nithsdale,  and  Strathclyde  by  Britons,  Cymri,  or 
Welshmen.  ...  In  the  sixth  century,  then,  there  were  four  races  contending  for  what 
was  formerly  the  Roman  province  of  Valencia — (1)  the  Britons,  Cymri,  or  Welsh,  ancient 
subjects  of  Rome,  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  legitimate  inhabitants  ;  (2)  the  Northern  and 


The  Scots  and  Picts  213 

Southern  Picts,  representing  the  older  or  Goidelic  strain  of  Celts,  with  an  admixture,  per- 
haps, of  aboriginal  Ivernians,  with  whom  may  be  associated  the  Attecott  Picts  west  of  the 
Nith  ;  (3)  the  Scots  from  Erin,  also  Goidelic,  but  distinct  from  the  Picts,  not  yet  firmly  set- 
tled in  Lorn  and  Argyle  under  ^Edan,  the  [great-]  grandson  of  Fergus  Mor  Mac  Eire,  but 
making  descents  wherever  they  could  find  a  footing,  and  destined  to  give  their  name  to  Alban 
in  later  centuries  as  "Scotland  "  ;  and  (4)  the  Teutonic  colonists. — Herbert  Maxwell,  History 
of Dumfries  and  Galloway \  pp.  32,  33. 

I  Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  163. 

8  "  Alban,  or,  as  we  now  call  it,  Scotland,  had  by  this  time  resolved  itself  into  four  domin- 
ions, each  under  its  separate  line  of  kings.  The  Picts  held  the  country  north  of  the  Forth, 
their  chief  town  being  near  the  mouth  of  the  Ness ;  Argyle  and  Lorn  formed  the  kingdom  of 
Dalriada,  populated  by  the  Scottish  (that  is,  Irish)  descendants  of  the  colony  of  Fergus  Mor. 
The  British  kingdom  of  Alclut  or  Strathclyde  was  the  northern  portion  of  the  Cymric  terri- 
tory, or  old  Wales,  once  extending  from  Cornwall  to  Dunbarton,  but  permanently  severed 
first  by  the  Saxon  king,  Ceawlin,  who  in  577  took  possession  of  the  country  round  Bath  and 
Gloucester  ;  and  second  by  Edwin,  King  of  Bernicia,  at  the  great  battle  of  Chester,  in  613. 
Strathclyde,  then,  comprised  a  tract  extending  from  the  Derwent  in  Cumberland  to  Loch 
Lomond,  the  capital  being  called  in  Welsh  Alclut,  or  the  cliff  on  the  Clyde,  but  known  to 
the  Dalriadic  and  Pictish  Gaels  as  dun  Bretann,  the  fort  of  the  Welshmen. 

"  On  the  east  the  Saxon  realm  of  Bernicia  stretched  from  the  Humber  to  the  Forth  under 
King  Edwin,  who  has  left  his  name  in  Edinburgh,  the  Saxon  title  of  the  town  which  the 
Gaels  called  Dunedin,  but  whose  seat  of  rule  was  Bamborough.  Just  as  the  territory  of  the 
Attecott  Picts  was  separated  from  Strathclyde  by  the  rampart  now  known  as  the  De'il's  Dyke, 
so  Bernicia  was  separated  from  Strathclyde  by  the  Catrail,  an  earthwork  crossing  the  upper 
part  of  Liddesdale.  Besides  these  four  realms  there  was  a  debatable  strip  of  country  between 
the  Lennox  Hills  and  the  Grampians,  including  the  carse  of  Stirling  and  part  of  Linlithgow- 
shire, chiefly  inhabited  by  the  Southern  Picts  or  Picts  of  Manau  ;  and  lastly,  the  old  territory 
of  the  Niduarian  or  Attecott  Picts,  who  had  managed  to  retain  autonomy  under  native  princes, 
and  a  degree  of  independence,  by  means  of  powerful  alliances. 

"  At  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  then,  Dumfriesshire  was  under  the  rule  of  the 
Welsh  kings  of  Strathclyde,  while  Wigtonshire  and  Kirkcudbright,  soon  to  acquire  the  name 
of  Galloway,  were  under  their  native  Pictish  princes." — Maxwell,  History  of  Dumfries  and 
Galloway,  pp.  35,  36. 

9  A.  d.  629,  Cath  Fedhaeoin  in  quo  Maelcaith  mac  Scandail  Rex  Cruithnin  victor  erat. 
Concad  Cer  Rex  Dalriada  cecidit  et  Dicuill  mac  Eachach  Rex  Ceneoil  Cruithne  cecedit  et 
nepotes  Aidan,  id  est,  Regullan  mac  Conaing  et  Failbe  mac  Eachach  (et  Osseric  mac  Albruit 
cum  strage  maxima  suorum).     Eochadh  Buidhi  mac  Aidan  victor  erat.— Tighernac. 

10  Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  242. 

II  In  the  same  year  in  which  the  battle  was  fought  which  placed  Osuald  on  the  throne  of 
Bernicia,  Domnall  Brecc,  king  of  the  Scots  of  Dalriada,  appears  to  have  made  an  attempt  to 
wrest  the  district  between  the  Avon  and  the  Pentland  Hills  from  the  Angles,  whether  as 
having  some  claim  to  it  through  his  grandfather,  Aidan,  or  what  is  more  probable,  as  a  leader 
of  the  Britons,  is  uncertain. — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  247. 

12 "  In  the  centre  of  Scotland,  where  it  is  intersected  by  the  two  arms  of  the  sea,  the 
Forth  and  the  Clyde,  and  where  the  boundaries  of  these  four  kingdoms  approach  one  another, 
is  a  territory  extending  from  the  Esk  to  the  Tay,  which  possessed  a  very  mixed  population, 
and  was  the  scene  of  most  of  the  conflicts  between  these  four  states.  Originally  occupied  by 
the  tribe  of  the  Damnonii,  the  northern  boundary  of  the  Roman  province  intersected  it  for 
two  centuries  and  a  half,  including  part  of  this  tribe  and  the  province,  and  merging  the  rest 
among  the  barbarians.  On  the  fall  of  the  Roman  power  in  Britain,  it  was  overrun  by  the 
Picts,  and  one  of  the  earliest  settlements  of  the  Saxons,  which  probably  was  composed  of 
Frisians,  took  place  in  the  districts  about  the  Roman  wall.     It  was  here  that,  during  the 


214  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

sixth  century,  the  main  struggle  took  place.  It  falls  naturally  into  three  divisions.  The  first 
extends  from  the  Esk  and  the  Pentland  Hills  to  the  Roman  wall  and  the  river  Carron. 
This  district  we  find  mainly  peopled  by  Picts,  the  remains  probably  of  those  who  once  occu- 
pied the  eastern  districts  to  the  southern  wall,  and  preserved  a  kind  of  independence,  while 
the  rest  were  subjected  by  the  Angles. 

1  •  From  the  Picts  the  Angles  give  the  hills  which  formed  its  southern  boundary  the  name 
of  the  Pehtland,  now  Pentland  Hills.  Near  its  southeastern  boundary  was  the  strong  natu- 
ral position  called  by  the  Britons  Mynyd  Agned  and  also  Dineiddyn,  and  by  the  Gaels  Dun- 
edin.  Nine  miles  farther  west,  the  Firth  of  Forth  is  narrowed  till  the  coast  approaches  to 
within  two  miles  of  that  of  Fife,  and  affords  a  ready  means  of  access  ;  and  on  the  south  shore 
of  the  upper  basin  of  the  Forth,  and  near  the  termination  of  the  Roman  wall,  was  the  ancient 
British  town  of  Caeredin,  while  in  the  Forth  itself  opposite  this  district  was  the  insular  town 
of  Guidi.  The  western  part  of  this  territory  was  known  to  the  Welsh  by  the  name  of  Manau 
Guotodin,  and  to  the  Gael  as  the  plain  or  district  of  Manann,  a  name  still  preserved  in  Sli- 
abhmanann,  now  Slamanan,  and  this  seems  to  have  been  the  headquarters  of  these  Picts. 

"  Between  them  and  the  kingdom  of  the  Picts  proper  lay  a  central  district,  extending 
from  the  wall  to  the  river  Forth,  and  on  the  bank  of  the  latter  was  the  strong  position  after- 
wards occupied  by  Stirling  Castle  ;  and  while  the  Angles  of  Bernicia  exercised  an  influence 
and  a  kind  of  authority  over  the  first  district,  this  central  part  seems  to  have  been  more 
closely  connected  with  the  British  kingdom  of  Alclyde.  The  northern  part,  extending  from 
the  Forth  to  the  Tay,  belonged  to  the  Pictish  kingdom,  with  whom  its  population,  originally 
British,  appears  to  have  been  incorporated,  and  was  the  district  afterwards  known  as  Fortrein 
and  Magh  Fortren. 

"  Finally,  on  the  north  shore  of  the  Solway  Firth,  and  separated  from  the  Britons  by  the 
lower  part  of  the  river  Nith,  and  by  the  mountain  range  which  separates  the  counties  of 
Kirkcudbright  and  Wigton  from  those  of  Dumfries  and  Ayr,  were  a  body  of  Picts,  termed 
by  Bede  Niduari  ;  and  this  district,  consisting  of  the  two  former  counties,  was  known  to  the 
Welsh  as  Galwydel,  and  to  the  Irish  as  Gallgaidel,  from  which  was  formed  the  name  Gall- 
weithia,  now  Galloway." — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  pp.  237-239.    See  Note  6,  p.  192. 

13  During  these  wars  there  appears  to  have  been  hitherto  a  combination  of  the  Britons  of 
Alclyde  and  the  Scots  of  Dalriada  against  the  Angles  and  the  Pictish  population  subject  to 
them.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  conflict  of  the  western  tribes  against  the  eastern,  and  of  the 
Christian  party  against  the  pagan  and  semi-pagan,  their  common  Christianity  forming  a  strong 
bond  of  union  between  the  two  former  nations,  and  after  the  death  of  Rhydderch  Hael  in 
603  the  Dalriadic  kings  seem  to  have  taken  the  lead  in  the  command  of  the  combined 
forces. — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  249. 

14  Oswy  .  .  .  held  the  same  dominions  for  some  time,  and  for  the  most  part  subdued 
and  made  tributary  the  nations  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  which  possess  the  northern  parts 
of  Britain  :  but  of  these  hereafter. — Bede,  book  ii.,  ch.  v. 

15  The  same  King  Oswy  governed  the  Mercians,  as  also  the  people  of  the  other 
southern  provinces,  three  years  after  he  had  slain  King  Penda  ;  and  he  likewise  subdued  the 
greater  part  of  the  Picts  to  the  dominion  of  the  English. — Bede,  book  iii.,  ch.  xxiv. 

The  Scots  of  Dalriada  naturally  fell  under  his  [Oswiu's]  dominion  along  with  the  Britons, 
and  we  have  the  testimony  of  Adamnan  that  they  were  trodden  down  by  strangers  during  the 
same  period.  But  while  these  nations  became  tributary  to  the  Angles  during  this  period  of 
thirty  years,  the  mode  in  which  the  kings  of  Northumbria  dealt  with  the  Picts  shows  that 
their  dominion  over  them  was  of  a  different  kind,  and  that  they  viewed  that  part  of  the  nation 
which  was  subject  to  them  as  now  forming  part  of  the  Northumbrian  kingdom.  The  way 
for  this  was  prepared  by  the  accession  of  Talorcan,  son  of  Ainfrait,  to  the  throne  of  the 
Picts  on  the  death  of  Talore,  son  of  Wid,  or  Ectolairg  mac  Foith,  as  Tighernac  calls  him,  in 
653.  Talorcan  was  obviously  the  son  of  that  Ainfrait,  the  son  of  ^Edilfrid,  and  elder 
brother  of  Osuald,  who  on  his  father's  death  had  taken  refuge  with  the  Picts,  and  his  son 


The  Scots  and  Picts  215 

Talorcan  must  have  succeeded  to  the  throne  through  a  Pictish  mother.  At  the  time,  then, 
when  Oswiu  thus  extended  his  sway  over  the  Britons  and  Scots  there  was  a  king  of  the  Anglic 
race  by  paternal  descent  actually  reigning  over  the  Picts.  Tighernac  records  his  death  in 
657,  and  Bede  tells  us  that  within  three  years  after  he  had  slain  King  Penda,  Oswiu  subjected 
the  greater  part  of  the  Picts  to  the  dominion  of  the  Angles.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that 
he  claimed  their  submission  to  himself  as  the  cousin  and  heir  on  the  paternal  side  of  their 
king  Talorcan,  and  enforced  his  claim  by  force  of  arms.  How  far  his  dominion  extended 
it  is  difficult  to  say,  but  it  certainly  embraced,  as  we  shall  see,  what  Bede  calls  the  province 
of  the  Picts  on  the  north  side  of  the  Firth  of  Forth,  and,  nominally  at  least,  may  have  in- 
cluded the  whole  territory  of  the  Southern  Picts  ;  while  Gartnaid,  the  son  of  Donnell,  or 
Domhnaill,  who  appears  in  the  Pictish  Chronicle  as  his  successor,  and  who  from  the  form  of 
his  father's  name  must  have  been  of  pure  Gaelic  race,  ruled  over  those  who  remained 
independent. — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  pp.  257-258. 

16  In  the  first  years  of  his  [Ecgfrid's]  reign  the  bestial  people  of  the  Picts,  despising  their 
subjection  to  the  Saxons,  and  threatening  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  servitude,  collected  to- 
gether innumerable  tribes  from  the  north,  on  hearing  which  Ecgfrid  assembled  an  army,  and 
at  the  head  of  a  smaller  body  of  troops  advanced  against  this  great  and  not  easily  discovered 
enemy,  who  were  assembled  under  a  formidable  ruler  called  Bernaeth,  and  attacking  them 
made  so  great  a  slaughter  that  two  rivers  were  almost  filled  with  their  bodies.  Those  who 
fled  were  pursued  and  cut  to  pieces,  and  the  people  were  again  reduced  to  servitude,  and 
remained  under  subjection  during  the  rest  of  Ecgfrid's  reign. — Eddi,  Life  of  St.  Wilfrid* 
ch.  xix.  (written  before  731). 

11  In  the  meantime  the  little  kingdom  of  Dalriada  was  in  a  state  of  complete  disorgani- 
zation. We  find  no  record  of  any  real  king  over  the  whole  nation  of  the  Scots,  but  each  separate 
tribe  seems  to  have  remained  isolated  from  the  rest  under  its  own  chief,  while  the  Britons 
exercised  a  kind  of  sway  over  them,  and,  along  with  the  Britons,  they  were  under  subjection 
to  the  Angles. —  Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  263. 

18  A.  D.  678,  Interfectio  generis  Loairn  itirinn,  id  est,  Feachair  fotai  et  Britones  qui 
victores  erant. — Tighernac. 

Bellum  Duinlocho  et  bellum  Liaccmaelain  et  Doirad  Eilinn — Annals  of  Ulster. 

19  Bede,  book  iv.,  ch.  xxvi. 

20  Brudei  was  paternally  a  scion  of  the  royal  House  of  Alclyde,  his  father  Bili  appearing 
in  the  Welsh  genealogies  annexed  to  Nennius  as  the  son  of  Neithon  and  father  of  that 
Eugein  who  slew  Domnall  Brecc  in  642. 

81  Book  iii.,  ch.  i. 

22  711,  Congressio  Brittonum  et  Dalriadha  for  Loirgeclat  ibu  Britones  devicti.  717, 
Congressio  Dalriada  et  Brittonum  in  lapide  qui  vocatur  Minvircc  et  Britones  devicti 
sunt. — Tighernac. 

23  Book  v.,  ch.  xxi.    See  p.  126. 

24  726,  Nechtain  mac  Derili  constringitur  apud  Druist  regem.  Dungal  de  regno 
ejectus  est  et  Druist  de  regno  Pictorum  ejectus  et  Elphin  pro  eo  regnat.  Eochach  mac 
Eachach  regnare  incipit. — Tighernac. 

25  697,  Euchu  nepos  Domhnall  jugulatus  est. — Annals  of  Ulster. 

26  728,  Cath  Monaigh  Craebi  itir  Piccardachaib  fein  (i.  e. ,  between  the  Picts  themselves), 
Aengus  et  Alpine  issiat  tuc  in  cath  (fought  that  battle),  et  ro  mebaigh  ria  (the  victory  was 
with)  n  Aengus  et  ro  marbhadh  mac  Alpin  andsin  (and  the  son  of  Alpin  was  slain  there)  et  ro 
gab  Aengus  nert  (and  Angus  took  his  person).  Cath  truadh  itir  (an  unfortunate  battle  be- 
tween the)  Piccardachaebh  ac  Caislen  Credhi  et  ro  mebaigh  ar  in  (and  the  victory  was  against 
the  same),  Alpin  et  ro  bearadh  a  cricha  et  a  daine  de  uile  (and  his  territories  and  all  his  men 
were  taken),  et  ro  gab  Nechtan  mac  Derili  Righi  na  Picardach  (lost  the  kingdom  of  the 
Picts). — Tighernac.     The  Ulster  Annals  add  :  "  ubi  Alpinus  effugit." 

27  736,  Aengus  mac  Fergusa  rex  Pictorum  vastavit  regiones  Dailriata  et  obtinuit  Dunad 


216  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

et  compulsit  Creich  et  duos  filios  Selbaiche  catenis  alligavit,  id  est,  Dongal  et  Feradach,  et 
Paulo  post  Brudeus  mac  Aengusa  mic  Fergusa  obiit. — Tighernac. 

88  736,  Bellum  Cnuicc  Coirpri  i  Calathros  uc  etar  Linndu  inter  Dalriatai  et  Fortrenn 
et  Talorgan  mac  Ferguso  filium  Ainbhceallach  fugientum  cum  exercitu  persequitur  in  qua 
congressione  multi  nobiles  ceciderunt. — Annals  of  Ulster. 

99  One  of  the  chronicles  appears  to  have  preserved  the  traditionary  account  of  his  death 
when  it  tells  us  that  he  was  slain  in  Galloway,  after  he  had  destroyed  it,  by  a  single  person 
who  lay  in  wait  for  him  in  a  thick  wood  overhanging  the  entrance  of  the  ford  of  a  river  as  he 
rode  among  his  people.  (Cesty  fust  tue  en  Goloway,  com  il  le  avoit  destruyt,  de  un  soul 
hom  qi  ly  gayta  en  un  espesse  hoys  en  pendaunt  al  entree  dun  ge  de  un  ryvere,  com  chevauch- 
eoit  entre  ses  gentz. — Scala  Chron.)  The  scene  of  his  death  must  have  been  on  the  east  side 
of  Loch  Ryan,  where  a  stream  falls  into  the  loch,  on  the  north  side  of  which  is  the  farm  of 
Laight,  and  on  this  farm  is  a  large  upright  pillar  stone,  to  which  the  name  of  Laight  Alpin, 
or  the  Grave  of  Alpin,  is  given. 

30  By  the  Picts,  Simeon  usually  understands  the  Picts  of  Galloway,  and  this  battle  seems 
to  have  followed  the  attack  upon  them  by  Alpin  and  his  Scots. 

31  750,  Cath  etir  Pictones  et  Britones,  id  est  a  Talorgan  mac  Fergusa  et  a  brathair  et  ar 
Piccardach  imaille  friss  (and  his  brother  and  a  slaughter  of  Picts  with  him). — Tighernac. 

750,  Bellum  inter  Pictos  et  Brittonis,  id  est,  Gueith  Mocetauc  et  rex  eorum  Talorgan  a 
Brittonibus  occiditur. — An.  Cam. 

32  756,  Eadberht  rex,  xviii.  anno  regni  sui  et  Unust  rex  Pictorum  duxerunt  exercitum  ad 
urbem  Alcluth.  Ibique  Brittones  in  deditionem  receperunt  prima  die  mensis  Augusti. 
Decima  autem  die  ejusdem  mensis  interiit  exercitus  pene  omnis  quem  duxit.  (Eadberhtus) 
de  Ouania  ad  Niwanbirig,  id  est,  ad  novam  civitatem. — Simeon  of  Durham. 

33  775.  Pex  Pictorum  Cynoth  ex  voragine  hujus  coenulentis  vitae  eripitur. — Simeon  of 
Durham. 

"  After  the  death  of  Angus  MacFergus,  king  of  the  Picts,  who  is  stigmatized  by  a  Saxon 
writer  as  'a  bloody  tyrant,'  the  history  of  the  succeeding  period  again  becomes  obscure. 
Bruidi,  his  brother,  followed  him  on  the  throne,  which,  after  the  death  of  Bruidi,  and  an  in- 
terval of  fifteen  years,  during  which  it  was  again  occupied  in  succession  by  two  brothers, 
reverted  once  more  to  the  family  of  Angus  in  the  persons  of  his  son  and  grandson — Constan- 
tine  MacFergus,  also  probably  a  member  of  the  same  race,  acquiring  the  supreme  power 
towards  the  close  of  the  century  by  driving  out  Conal  MacTeige,  who  lost  his  life  a  few  years 
later  in  Kintyre.  The  names  of  three  kings  of  Dalriada  attest  the  existence  of  the  little 
kingdom,  without  throwing  any  further  light  upon  its  history,  though  from  the  character  of  a 
subsequent  reference  to  Aodh,  '  the  Fair,'  it  may  be  conjectured  that  he  was  in  some  sense 
the  restorer  of  the  line  of  Kintyre.  After  the  death  of  Doncorcin,  the  last  of  these  three 
princes,  which  happened  shortly  after  the  accession  of  Constantine,  no  further  mention  of  the 
province  will  be  found  in  any  of  the  Irish  annals  which  have  hitherto  been  published. 

"  For  thirty  years  and  upwards,  the  supremacy  of  Constantine  was  undisputed,  and  he 
was  succeeded  upon  his  death  by  his  brother  Angus,  his  son  Drost,  and  his  nephew  Eoganan 
in  the  same  regular  order  which  is  subsequently  observable  amongst  the  early  kings  of  Scot- 
land. His  reign  was  unquestionably  an  era  of  considerable  importance,  tradition  connecting 
it  with  the  termination  of  the  Pictish  monarchy,  and  representing  Constantine  as  the  last  of 
the  Pictish  kings  —  a  tradition  which  must  have  owed  its  origin  to  a  vague  recollection  of 
some  momentous  change  about  this  period.  He  and  his  brother  Angus  are  numbered  most 
suspiciously  amongst  the  immediate  predecessors  of  Kenneth  Mac  Alpin  in  the  '  Duan  of 
Alban,'  the  oldest  known  genealogy  of  the  early  kings  of  Scotland  ;  whilst  the  name  of  Con- 
stantine, unknown  amongst  the  paternal  ancestry  of  Kenneth,  was  borne  by  his  son  and  many 
of  his  race,  who  would  thus  appear  to  have  looked  for  their  title  to  the  throne  quite  as  much 
to  their  maternal  as  to  their  paternal  line  of  ancestry — for  the  mother  of  Alpin,  Kenneth's 
father,  was  traditionally  a  daughter  of  the  House  of  Fergus.    (Innes,  book  i.,  art.  viii.     Cale- 


The  Scots  and  Picts  217 

donia,  book  ii.,  ch.  vi.,  p.  302,  note  A,  with  other  authorities  cited  by  both.)  The  marriage  of 
Kenneth's  grandfather  with  a  sister  of  Constantine  and  Angus  rests  solely  on  tradition,  but 
it  appears  the  most  probable  solution  of  his  peaceful  accession  to  the  throne.  The  examples 
of  Talorcan,  son  of  Eanfred,  perhaps  also  of  his  cousin  Bruidi,  son  of  Bili,  which  is  a  British 
name,  shows  that  the  alien  extraction  of  the  father  was  no  bar  to  the  succession  of  the  son. 
Such  a  succession  would  be  exactly  in  accordance  with  the  old  custom  mentioned  by  Bede, 
that  '  in  cases  of  difficulty '  the  female  line  was  preferred  to  the  male,  i.  e.,  a  near  connec- 
tion in  the  female  line  to  a  distant  male  heir.  From  not  attending  to  the  expression  '  in 
cases  of  difficulty,'  the  sense  of  Bede's  words  has  been  often  misinterpreted." — Scotland 
under  her  Early  Kings,  vol.  i.,  pp.  18,  19. 

34  780,  Elpin  rex  Saxonum  moritur. — Annals  of  Ulster. 

86  789,  Bellum  inter  Pictos  ubi  Conall  mac  Taidg  victus  est  et  evasit  et  Constantin  victor 
fuit. 

790,  Vel  hie  bellum  Conall  et  Constantin  secundum  alios  libros. — Annals  of  Ulster. 

86  Anno  ab  incarnatione  Domini  octingentesimo  tricesimo  quarto  congressi  sunt  Scotti 
cum  Pictis  in  sollempnitate  Paschali.  Et  plures  de  nobilioribus  Pictorum  ceciderunt.  Sicque 
Alpinus  Rex  Scottorum  victor  extitit,  unde  in  superbiam  elatus  ab  eis,  altero  concerto  bello, 
tercio  decimo  kal.  Augusti  ejusdem  anni  a  Pictis  vincitur  atque  truncatur. — Chronicles  of  the 
Picts  and  Scots,  p.  209. 

81  The  Chronicle  of  Huntingdon  tells  us  that  Kynadius  succeeded  his  father  Alpin  in 
his  kingdom,  and  that  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign,  which  corresponds  with  the  year  839, 
while  the  Danish  pirates,  having  occupied  the  Pictish  shores,  had  crushed  the  Picts  who  were 
defending  themselves,  with  a  great  slaughter,  Kynadius,  passing  into  their  remaining  terri- 
tories, turned  his  arms  against  them,  and  having  slain  many,  compelled  them  to  take  flight, 
and  was  the  first  king  of  the  Scots  who  acquired  the  monarchy  of  the  whole  of  Alban,  and 
ruled  in  it  over  the  Scots. 

Cujus  filius  Kynadius  successit  in  regno  patris  qui  vii°  regni  sui  anno,  cum  piratae  Dano- 
rum,  occupatis  littoribus,  Pictos  sua  defendentes,  straga  maxima  pertrivissent,  in  reliquos 
Pictorum  terminos  transiens,  arma  vertit  et  multis  occisis  fugere  compulit,  sicque  monarchiam 
totius  Albanise,  quae  nunc  Scotia  dicitur,  primus  Scottorum  rex  conquisivit  et  in  ea  primo 
super  Scottos  regnavit. — Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  p.  209. 

38  Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  edited  by  Wm.  F.  Skene,  pp.  9,  21,  65,  84,  102, 
1-3$,  J54»  J84,  361,  362  :  E.  W.  Robertson,  Scotland  under  her  Early  Kings,  vol.  i.,  pp. 
23-39- 

39  In  the  Tract  of  the  Men  of  Alban  we  are  told  that  "  the  armed  muster  of  the  Cineal 
Loam  was  seven  hundred  men  ;  but  it  is  of  the  Airgialla  that  the  seventh  hundred  is." — 
Chron.  Picts  and  Scots,  p.  313.  This  name  (Airgialla)  was  therefore  likewise  applied  to 
two  districts  whose  people  were  subject  to  the  Cineal  Loam,  and  contributed  one  hundred 
men  to  their  armed  muster,  and  were  probably  the  ' '  Comites  "  who  fought  along  with 
Selbhac  in  719. 

40  It  is  utterly  impossible  that  the  Picts  could  have  been  exterminated  and  their  language 
eradicated  by  the  broken  remnants  of  the  insignificant  tribe  of  Kintyre,  and  it  is  equally  im- 
probable that  such  a  conquest,  if  it  ever  took  place,  should  have  escaped  the  notice  of  every 
contemporary  writer.  The  Pictish  name  disappeared,  but  the  Pictish  people  and  their  lan- 
guage remained  as  little  influenced  by  the  accession  of  Kenneth  MacAlpin,  apparently  in 
right  of  his  maternal  ancestry,  as  they  were  at  a  later  period  by  the  failure  of  the  male  line  of 
the  same  family  in  the  person  of  Malcolm  the  Second,  and  by  the  similar  accession,  in  right 
of  his  maternal  ancestors,  of  a  prince  of  the  Pictish  House  of  Athol. — Scotland  under  her 
Early  Kings,  vol.  ii.,  p.  373. 

At  this  time  the  Picts  were  the  chief  power  in  Scotland  ;  but,  like  the  Scots  of  Argyle, 
they  were  divided  among  themselves.  .  .  .  The  Picts  were  rather  living  in  a  rude  con- 
federacy than  under  a  fixed  monarchy  ;  and,  besides  the  domestic  feuds  and  broils  incident  to 


218  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

tribunal  communities,  the  Britons,  Picts,  Saxons,  Scots,  and  finally  the  Danes,  carried  on  an 
intermissive  warfare  with  one  another,  often  showing  little  result.  Throughout  the  seventh 
and  eighth  centuries,  the  first  four  tribes  frequently  met  in  deadly  conflict  on  a  sort  of 
debatable  land,  extending  from  the  river  Forth  to  the  river  Almond,  in  the  counties  of  Stir- 
ling and  Linlithgow.  This  region  seems  to  have  been  occupied  by  a  mixed  population  of 
Picts,  Angles,  and  Britons  ;  and  here  the  chief  tribes  encountered  each  other,  and  fought  most 
of  their  battles. — John  Mackintosh,  History  of  Civilization  in  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  in. 

41  See  Note  33,  p.  217. 

42  War  was  declared  against  the  Picts  ;  and  he  [Kenneth]  gathered  his  forces  together, 
and  made  his  way  into  the  country.  So  furiously,  then,  did  he  rage  not  only  against  the  men, 
but  even  the  women  and  little  ones,  that  he  spared  neither  sex  nor  holy  orders,  but  destroyed, 
with  fire  and  sword,  every  living  thing  which  he  did  not  carry  off  with  him.  Afterwards,  in  the 
sixth  year  of  his  reign,  when  the  Danish  pirates  had  occupied  the  coast,  and,  while  plundering 
the  seaboard,  had,  with  no  small  slaughter,  crushed  the  Picts  who  were  defending  their  lands 
Kenneth,  likewise,  himself  also  turned  his  arms  against  the  remaining  frontiers  of  the  Picts, 
and,  crossing  the  mountain  range  on  their  borders,  to  wit,  the  backbone  of  Albania,  which  is 
called  Drumalban  in  Scottish,  he  slew  many  of  the  Picts,  and  put  the  rest  to  flight  ;  thus 
acquiring  the  sole  sovereignty  over  both  countries.  But  the  Picts,  being  somewhat  reinforced 
by  the  help  of  the  Angles,  kept  harassing  Kenneth  for  four  years.  Weakening  them  subse- 
quently, however,  by  unforeseen  inroads  and  various  massacres,  at  length,  in  the  twelfth  year 
of  his  reign,  he  engaged  them  seven  times  in  one  day,  and  swept  down  countless  multitudes 
of  the  Pictish  people.  So  he  established  and  strengthened  his  authority  thenceforth  over  the 
whole  country  from  the  river  Tyne,  beside  Northumbria,  to  the  Orkney  Isles  —  as  formerly 
St.  Adamnan,  the  Abbot  of  Hy  (Iona),  had  announced  in  his  prophecy.  Thus,  not  only  were 
the  kings  and  leaders  of  that  nation  destroyed,  but  we  read  that  their  stock  and  race,  also, 
along  with  their  language  or  dialect,  were  lost  ;  so  that  whatever  of  these  is  found  in  the 
writings  of  the  ancients  is  believed  by  most  to  be  fictitious  or  apocryphal. — John  of  For- 
dun's  Chronicle ,  book  iv.,  ch.  iv. 

43  During  the  entire  period  of  a  century  and  a  half  which  had  now  elapsed  since  the 
Northern  Picts  were  converted  to  Christianity  by  the  preaching  of  St.  Columba  (565),  there  is 
hardly  to  be  found  the  record  of  a  single  battle  between  them  and  the  Scots  of  Dalriada. 
Had  they  viewed  each  other  as  hostile  races,  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  more  powerful 
nation  of  the  Picts  permitting  a  small  colony  like  the  Scots  of  Dalriada  to  remain  in  undis- 
turbed possession  of  the  western  district  where  they  had  settled  ;  and  prior  to  the  mission  of 
St.  Columba  we  find  the  king  of  the  Northern  Picts  endeavoring  to  expel  them  ;  but  after 
that  date  there  existed  a  powerful  element  of  peace  and  bond  of  union  in  the  Columban 
Church. — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  276. 

The  Scottish  clergy,  no  doubt,  never  lost  the  hope  of  regaining  their  position  as  the 
Church  of  Pictavia,  and  of  recovering  their  possessions  there.  The  occurrence  of  a  Scottish 
prince  having  a  claim  to  the  Pictish  crown  by  the  Pictish  law  of  succession,  accompanied  by 
the  invasion  of  the  Danes,  and  the  crushing  defeat  sustained  by  the  Pictish  army  which 
opposed  them,  probably  afforded  a  favorable  opportunity. — Skene,  Introduction  to  John  of 
Fordun's  Chronicle,  p.  xlix. 

44  The  causes  of  this  revolution  are  obscure  ;  but  the  defeat  of  the  Picts  by  the  Danes 
(in  839)  must  have  facilitated  the  accession  of  a  king  of  Scottish  descent  ;  and  the  natural 
outcome  of  the  long  struggle  among  the  various  tribes,  which  we  dimly  discern  through  the 
mist,  had  a  tendency  towards  a  greater  concentration  of  power  somewhere — one  or  other  of 
the  chief  tribes  would  gradually  obtain  an  ascendancy.  It  is  to  these  circumstances  we  should 
look  for  an  explanation  of  the  foundation  of  the  monarchy.  Other  explanations  have  been 
offered,  such  as  royal  marriages,  the  efforts  of  the  Scots  clergy,  and  so  on,  but  none  of  them  are 
satisfactory.  It  is  safer,  and  probably  nearer  the  truth,  to  rely  on  the  accumulating  force  of  the 
surrounding  circumstances. — Mackintosh,  History  of  Civilization  in  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  112. 


The  Scots  and  Picts  219 

46  "  We  cannot  thoroughly  understand  the  significance  of  the  ascendancy  so  acquired  by 
the  kings  of  the  Dalriadic  race,  without  realizing  to  ourselves,  what  is  not  to  be  done  at 
once,  the  high  standard  of  civilization  which  separated  the  Scots  of  Ireland  and  Dalriada 
from  the  other  nations  inhabiting  the  British  Isles.  .  .  .  We  have  no  conspicuous  memorials 
of  such  a  social  condition,  such  as  the  great  buildings  left  by  the  Romans  and  the  Normans. 
Celtic  civilization  took  another  and  subtler,  perhaps  a  feebler  shape.  It  came  out  emphati- 
cally in  dress  and  decoration.  Among  Irish  relics  there  are  many  golden  ornaments  of 
exquisitely  beautiful  and  symmetrical  pattern.  Of  the  trinkets  too,  made  of  jet,  glass,  orna- 
mental stone,  and  enamel,  the  remnants  found  in  later  times  belong  in  so  preponderating  a 
proportion  to  Ireland,  as  to  point  to  the  centre  of  fashion  whence  they  radiated  being  there. 
There  seems  to  have  been  a  good  deal  of  what  may  be  called  elegant  luxury  :  the  great  folks, 
for  instance,  lay  or  ecclesiastic,  had  their  carriages  and  their  yachts.  Especially  the  shrines, 
the  ecclesiastical  vestments,  and  all  the  decorations  devoted  to  religion  were  rich  and  beauti- 
ful. They  had  manuscripts  beautifully  written  and  adorned,  which  were  encased  in  costly 
and  finely  worked  bindings.  It  is  to  this  honor  done  to  sacred  books,  of  which  the  finest 
specimens  belong  to  Ireland,  that  we  may  attribute  the  medieval  passion  for  rich  bindings. 

"  The  high  civilization  of  the  Celtic  Scots,  indeed,  was  received  with  a  becoming  defer- 
ence all  around.  .  .  .  Among  the  nations  around,  whether  of  Teutonic  or  Celtic  origin, 
the  civilization  of  the  Scots,  then  a  rising  and  strengthening  civilization,  raised  them  high  in 
rank,  and  gives  us  reason  to  believe  that  the  Picts,  instead  of  mourning  the  loss  of  indepen- 
dence, felt  their  position  raised  by  counting  the  Dalriadic  sovereign  as  their  own  too." — 
Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  pp.  294,  295,  297. 

46  Paulo  post  ab  eo  bello  in  xiiij  ejus  facto  in  Dolair  inter  DanariOs  et  Scottos.  Occisi 
sunt  Scotti  co  Ach  Cochlam. — Pictish  Chronicle.  This  is  the  first  appearance  in  the  Pictisk 
Chronicle  of  the  term  "Scotti"  or  Scots  being  applied  to  any  portion  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Pictavia,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  used  with  reference  to  those  of  the  province  of  Fife  in 
particular,  but  the  Ulster  Annals  record  the  death  of  Constantine  as  king  of  the  Picts. 

41  Eochodius  autem  filius  Run  regis  Britannorum  nepos  Cinadei  ex  filia  regnavit  annis  xi. 
Licet  Ciricium  filium  alii  dicunt  hie  regnasse ;  eo  quod  alumpnus  ordinatorque  Eochodio 
fiebat. — Pictish  Chronicle. 

48  In  their  hands  he  becomes  Gregorius  Magnus,  or  Gregory  the  Great,  and  in  his  person 
restores  the  true  line  of  Scots  royalty,  which  had  been  perverted  to  serve  the  claims  of  power- 
ful collaterals.  He  is  the  great  hero-king  of  his  age.  He  drives  out  the  Danes,  he  humbles 
England,  he  conquers  Ireland  ;  but  his  magnanimity  will  permit  him  to  take  no  more  advan- 
tage of  his  success  than  to  see  that  these  two  kingdoms  are  rightly  governed,  that  they  are  rid 
of  the  northern  invaders,  and  that  their  sceptres  are  respectively  wielded  by  the  legitimate 
heir.  All  this  is  just  about  as  true  as  the  story  of  the  king  of  Scotland  with  five  royal  com- 
panions rowing  the  barge  of  King  Edgar  in  the  Dee.  When  the  two  countries  afterwards 
had  their  bitter  quarrel,  such  inventions  were  the  way  in  which  the  quarrel  was  fought  in  the 
cloister. — Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  331. 

49  See  Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  pp.  9,  209  ;  Robertson's  Scotland  under  her 
Early  Kings,  vol.  i.,  pp.  54,  55;  Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  335. 

"  Though  we  know  less  of  his  diplomacy  in  the  states  to  the  northward  of  the  Danelaw, 
we  can  see  that  Alfred  was  busy  both  with  Bernicia  and  the  kingdom  of  the  Scots.  The  es- 
tablishment of  the  Danelaw  in  Mid-Britain,  the  presence  of  the  pirates  in  Caithness  and  the 
Hebrides,  made  these  states  his  natural  allies  ;  for,  pressed  as  they  were  by  the  vikings 
alike  from  the  north  and  from  the  south,  their  only  hope  of  independent  existence  lay  in  the 
help  of  Wessex.  Of  the  first  state  we  know  little.  The  wreck  of  Northumbria  had  given 
freedom  to  the  Britons  of  Strathclyde,  to  whom  the  name  of  Cumbrians  is  from  this  time 
transferred.  The  same  wreck  restored  to  its  old  isolation  the  kingdom  of  Bernicia.  Deira 
formed  part  of  the  Danelaw,  but  the  settlement  of  the  Danes  did  not  reach  beyond  the  Tyne, 
for  Bernicia,  ravaged  and  plundered  as  it  had  been,  still  remained  English,  and  governed,  as 


220  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

it  would  seem,  by  the  stock  of  its  earlier  kings.     The  weakness  of  this  state  drew  it  to  Alfred's 
side  ;  and  we  know  that  the  Bernician  ruler,  Eadwulf  of  Bamborough,  was  Alfred's  friend. 

"  The  same  dread  of  the  Danes  drew  to  him  the  kingdom  of  the  Scots.  The  Scot  king- 
dom, which  at  its  outset  lurked  almost  unseen  among  the  lakes  of  Argyle,  now  embraced  the 
whole  of  North  Britain,  from  Caithness  to  the  firths,  for  the  very  name  of  the  Picts  had  dis- 
appeared at  a  moment  when  the  power  of  the  Picts  seemed  to  have  reached  its  height.  The 
Pictish  kingdom  had  risen  fast  to  greatness  after  the  victory  of  Nechtansmere  in  685.  In  the 
century  which  followed  Ecgfrith's  defeat,  its  kings  reduced  the  Scots  of  Dalriada  from  nomi- 
nal dependence  to  actual  subjection  ;  the  annexation  of  Angus  and  Fife  carried  their  eastern 
border  to  the  sea,  while  to  the  south  their  alliance  with  the  Northumbrians  in  the  warfare 
which  both  waged  on  the  Welsh  extended  their  bounds  on  the  side  of  Cumbria  or  Strath- 
clyde.  But  the  hour  of  Pictish  greatness  was  marked  by  the  extinction  of  the  Pictish  name. 
In  the  midst  of  the  ninth  century  the  direct  line  of  their  royal  house  came  to  an  end,  and  the 
under-king  of  the  Scots  of  Dalriada,  Kenneth  MacAlpin,  ascended  the  Pictish  throne  in  right 
of  his  maternal  descent.  For  fifty  years  more  Kenneth  and  his  successors  remained  kings  of 
the  Picts.  At  the  moment  we  have  reached,  however,  the  title  passed  suddenly  away,  the 
tribe  which  had  given  its  chief  to  the  throne  gave  its  name  to  the  realm,  and  '  Pict-land ' 
disappeared  from  history  to  make  room  first  for  Alban  or  Albania,  and  then  for  '  the  land  of 
the  Scots."' — Green,  Conquest  of England ',  ch.  iv.,  sees.  39,  40. 

60  A. D.  900,  Domhnall  mac  Constantin  Ri  Alban  moritur. — Annals  of  Ulster. 

61  English  Chronicle,  Anno  926.     See  p. 

62  The  men  of  the  northern  Danelaw  found  themselves  backed  not  only  by  their  brethren 
from  Ireland,  but  by  the  mass  of  states  around  them  —  by  the  English  of  Bernicia,  by  the 
Scots  under  Constantine,  by  the  Welshmen  of  Cumbria  or  Strathclyde.  It  is  the  steady  recur- 
rence of  these  confederacies  which  makes  the  struggle  so  significant.  The  old  distinctions 
and  antipathies  of  race  must  have  already,  in  great  part,  passed  away  before  peoples  so  diverse 
could  have  been  gathered  into  one  host  by  a  common  dread  of  subjection,  and  the  motley 
character  of  the  army  pointed  forward  to  that  fusion  of  both  Norman  and  Briton  in  the  gen- 
eral body  of  the  English  race,  which  was  to  be  the  work  of  the  coming  years. — Green, 
Conquest  of  England,  ch.  v.,  sec.  42. 

63  Deinde  hostes  subegit,  Scotiam  usque  Dunfoeder  et  Wertermorum  terrestri  exercitu 
vastavit,  navali  vero  usque  Cateness  depopulatus  est. — Simeon  of  Durham,  di  Gestis  Reg. 
Fugato  deinde  Owino  rege  Cumbrorum  et  Constantino  rege  Scotorum,  terrestri  et  navali  ex- 
ercitu Scotiam  sibi  subjugando  perdomuit. — Simeon  of  Durham,  Ecclesiastical  History  of 
Durham.     See  also  English  Chronicle,  Anno  933. 

64  Florence  of  Worcester,  Anno  937;  the  Egill's  Saga;  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle,  Anno 
937  ;  Simeon  of  Durham  says,  in  his  History  of  the  Kings,  that  "  iEthelstan  fought  at  Wen- 
dune,  and  put  King  Oulaf  with  six  hundred  and  fifteen  ships,  Constantin,  king  of  the  Scots, 
and  the  king  of  the  Cumbrians  with  all  their  forces,  to  flight."  And  in  his  History  of  the 
Church  of  Durham  he  says  :  "  ^thelstan  fought  at  Weondune,  which  is  also  called  Aetbrun- 
nanmere  or  Brunnanbyrig,  against  Oulaf,  the  son  of  Guthred,  the  late  king,  who  had  arrived 
with  a  fleet  of  six  hundred  and  fifteen  ships,  supported  by  the  auxiliaries  of  the  kings  recently 
spoken  of,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  Scots  and  Cumbrians." 

65  In  945  Eadmund  conquered  Cumberland.  It  might  not  be  easy  to  say  exactly  what 
territory  is  meant  by  that  name  ;  but  it  was  clearly  the  whole  or  a  part  of  the  ancient  Strath- 
clyde. This  territory  Eadmund  bestowed  on  Malcolm,  king  of  Scots,  distinctly  as  a  territorial 
fief.  .  .  .  The  northern  kingdom  of  the  Britons  now  became  the  ordinary  appanage  of 
the  heirs  of  the  Scottish  crown  .  .  .  and  soon  after  the  Scottish  kings  themselves  made 
their  way  south  of  the  Forth.  In  the  reign  of  Eadred,  Edinburgh,  the  border  fortress  of 
Northumberland  to  the  north,  became  a  Scottish  possession  ...  it  was  the  beginning  of 
the  process  which  brought  the  lands  between  Forth  and  Tweed  into  the  possessions  of  the 
Scottish  kings,  and  which  thereby  turned  them  into  English  kings  of  a  Northern  England, 


The  Scots  and  Picts  221 

which  was  for  a  while  more  English  than  the  southern  England  itself. — Freeman's  Sketch  of 
English  History. 

66  Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  pp.  10,  151,  174,  302. 

67  Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  p.  10. 

68  He  is  the  same  Domnaldus  who  was  king  of  the  Cumbrians  when  Eadmund  ravaged 
the  country  in  945,  and  was  the  son  of  that  Eugenius,  king  of  the  Cumbrians,  who  fought  in 
the  battle  of  Brunanburgh. 

975,  Domnallmac  Eoain  Ri  Bretain  in  ailitri. — Tighernac. 

974,  Dun  walla  wn,  King  of  Strathclyde,  went  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome  (Brut  y 
Tywysogion). —  Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  pp.  77,  124. 

69  In  the  north  the  settlement  effected  by  Eadmund  still  held  good,  in  spite  of  a  raid  into 
which  the  Scots  seem  to  have  been  tempted  by  a  last  rising  of  the  Danelaw.  The  bribe  of 
the  Cumbrian  realm  sufficed  to  secure  the  Scot  king  as  a  fellow-worker  with  Eadgar,  as  effec- 
tively as  it  had  secured  him  as  a  fellow-worker  with  Eadmund,  while  a  fresh  bond  was  added 
by  the  cession  during  this  reign  of  the  fortress  of  Edinburgh  with  the  district  around  it,  along 
with  the  southern  shore  of  the  Forth,  to  the  Scottish  king. — Green,  Conquest  of  England,  ch. 
vii.,  sec.  12. 

60  Interfectus  est  a  suis  hominibus  in  Fotherkern  per  perfidiam  Finvelae  flliae  Cunchar 
comitis  de  Engus,  cujus  Finvelae  unicum  filium  predictus  Knyeth  interfecit  apud  Dunsinoen. 
— Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  pp.  175,  289. 

61  A.D.  997,  Maelcolaim  mac  Domnall  Ri  Breatan  Tuaiscert  moritur. — Tighernac. 
"See  note  1,  Chapter  XX. 

63  Fordun,  book  iv.,  ch.  xli.  Malcolm  appears  to  have  died  in  1029  and  to  have  then 
been  succeeded  by  another  Malcolm — so  at  least  the  Danish  authorities  tell  us  ;  but  the  Scots' 
chronicles  give  the  whole  of  the  period  of  the  united  reigns  to  one  Malcolm  ;  and  in  using  any 
lights  they  give  us,  it  is  necessary  to  speak  of  them  as  one,  since  there  are  no  means  of  sepa- 
rating their  two  reputations.  It  was  the  younger  Malcolm,  however,  according  to  the  same 
authorities,  who  was  the  son  of  Kenneth, —  the  other,  who  had  the  longer  reign,  being  called 
"  Mac  Malbrigid  Mac  Ruaidhri." — Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  341.  This  theory 
was  first  suggested  by  Skene  in  his  Highlanders  of  Scotland,  published  in  1837,  but  was  after- 
wards considered  by  him  to  be  untenable  (Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  400).     See  p.  238. 

64  Chronicles  of  the  Picts  and  Scots,  p.  366. 

66  A  comet  appeared  for  thirty  nights  to  the  people  of  Northumbria,  a  terrible 
presage  of  the  calamity  by  which  that  province  was  about  to  be  desolated.  For,  shortly  af- 
terwards (that  is,  after  thirty  days),  nearly  the  whole  population,  from  the  river  Tees  to  the 
Tweed  and  their  borders,  were  cut  off  in  a  conflict  in  which  they  were  engaged  with  a  count- 
less multitude  of  Scots  at  Carrun. — Simeon  of  Durham,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Durham, 
ch.  v. 

1018,  a  great  battle  was  fought  at  Carham  between  the  Scots  and  the  English,  between 
the  son  of  Waltheof,  earl  of  the  Northumbrians,  and  Malcolm,  the  son  of  Kenneth,  king  of 
the  Scots ;  with  whom  in  battle  was  Owen  the  Bald,  king  of  the  Clutinians. —  Simeon  of 
Durham,  Hist.  Reg. 

Which  [Uchtred]  being  slain  [by  King  Cnut]  his  brother  Eadulf,  surnamed  Cudel, 
very  slothful  and  timid,  succeeded  him  in  comitatum.  But  fearing  lest  the  Scots  should  re- 
venge upon  him  the  death  of  those  whom  his  brother,  as  is  above  said,  had  slain,  gave  all  Lo- 
thian for  satisfaction  and  firm  concord.  In  this  manner  was  Lothian  added  to  the  kingdom  of 
the  Scots. — Simeon  De  Obsess.  Dun. 

We  have  the  authority  of  the  Saxon  Chronicle  for  the  fact  that  Uchtred  was  slain  two  years 
before  and  that  Cnut  had  made  Eric,  a  Dane,  his  successor,  while  Simeon  makes  his  brother, 
Eadulf  Cudel,  succeed  him. — Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  p.  393. 

66  English  Chronicle,  Anno  945.     See  p.  300. 

67  Orkneyinga  Saga,  Collectanea  de  Rebus  Albanicis,  pp.  340,  346.    See  Appendix  P. 


222  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

68  The  same  Finleikr  who  appears  in  Tighernac  as  Findlaec  mac  Ruaidhri,  Mormaer 
Moreb,  and  in  the  Ulster  Annals  as  "  Ri  Alban,"  indicating  that  he  claimed  a  position  of 
independence  both  from  the  earls  of  Orkney  and  the  kings  of  the  Scots.  —  Celtic  Scotland, 
p.  389. 

69  Fordun  says,  "  cousin." 

70  He  was,  however,  murdered  through  the  wickedness  of  a  family,  the  murderers  of  both 
his  grandfather  and  great-grandfather,  the  head  of  which  was  Machabeus,  son  of  Finele,  by 
whom  he  was  privily  wounded  unto  death  at  Bothgofnane  ;  and,  being  carried  to  Elgin,  he 
died  there,  and  was  buried,  a  few  days  after,  in  the  island  of  Iona.  —  Fordun,  book  iv., 
ch.  xliv. 

71  Innes,  Ap.  4.  Sim.,  Hist.  Dun.,  i.,  3,  c.  5,  6  ;  Ibid.,  De  Obs.  Dun.,  p.  81  ;  De  Gestis, 
1018.  On  comparing  the  passages  of  Simeon  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  cession  of 
Lothian  by  Eadulf  Cudel  was  the  result  of  the  battle  of  Carham,  though  there  is  an  evident 
reluctance  in  the  English  chronicler  to  allude  to  the  defeat  and  its  consequences.  The  men 
of  the  Lothians,  according  to  Wallingford,  retained  their  laws  and  customs  unaltered,  and 
though  the  authority  is  questionable,  the  fact  is  probably  true,  for  Lothian  law  became  eventu- 
ally the  basis  of  Scottish  law.  Conquest  indeed  in  these  times  did  not  alter  the  laws  and 
customs  of  the  conquered, unless  where  they  come  into  contact  and  into  opposition  with  those 
of  the  conquerors,  and  the  men  of  the  Lothians  remained  under  the  Scottish  kings  in  much 
the  same  position  as  the  men  of  Kent  under  the  kings  of  Mercia  and  Wessex,  probably 
exchanging  the  condition  of  a  harassed  for  that  of  a  favored  frontier  province.  —  Scotland 
under  her  Early  Kings,  vol.  i.,  p.  96. 

72  The  Firth  of  Forth. 

73  Scotland  had  now  reached  her  permanent  and  lasting  frontier  towards  the  south,  the 
dependent  principality  of  Strathclyde,  having,  apparently,  during  the  course  of  this  reign, 
been  finally  incorporated  with  the  greater  kingdom.  When  Donald,  son  of  the  Eogan  who 
shared  in  the  bloody  fight  of  Brunanburgh,  died  on  a  pilgrimage  in  975,  he  seems  to  have  been 
succeeded  by  his  son  Malcolm,  whose  death  is  noticed  by  the  Irish  Tighernac  under  the  date 
of  997.  The  last  king  of  Strathclyde,  who  has  found  a  place  in  history,  is  Eogan  "  the 
Bald,"  who  fought  by  the  side  of  the  Scottish  king  at  Carham,  probably  a  son  of  the  British 
Malcolm  whose  family  name  he  bears  ;  and  in  the  person  of  this  Eogan  the  line  of  Aodh's 
son,  Donald,  appears  to  have  become  extinct.  The  earliest  authorities  of  the  twelfth  century 
give  the  title  of  "  king  of  the  Cumbrians,"  meaning  undoubtedly  the  northern  Cumbria 
or  Strathclyde,  to  Malcolm's  grandson,  Duncan,  and  it  is  probable  that  upon  the  failure 
of  the  line  of  Scoto-British  princes,  the  King  of  Scotland  placed  his  grandson  over  the  prov- 
ince, which  from  that  time,  losing  the  last  semblance  of  independence,  ceased  to  be  ruled  by 
a  separate  line  of  princes.  —  Robertson,  Scotland  under  her  Early  Kings,  vol.  i.,  p.  98. 

"  We  have  already  seen  how  the  political  relations  of  the  Scots  with  their  southern  neigh- 
bors had  been  affected  by  the  action  of  the  Danes.  Pressed  between  the  Norse  jarls  settled  in 
Caithness  and  the  Danelaw  of  Central  England,  the  Scot  kings  were  glad  to  welcome  the 
friendship  of  Wessex  ;  but  with  the  conquest  by  the  house  of  Alfred  of  the  Danelaw,  and  the 
extension  of  the  new  English  realm  to  their  own  southern  border,  their  dread  of  English 
ambition  became  in  its  turn  greater  than  their  dread  of  the  Dane.  In  the  battle  of  Brunan- 
burgh the  Scot  king,  Constantine,  fought  side  by  side  with  the  Northmen  against  yEthelstan. 
Eadmund's  gift  of  southern  Cumbria  showed  the  price  which  the  English  kings  set  upon  Scot- 
tish friendship.  The  district  was  thenceforth  held  by  the  heir  of  the  Scottish  crown,  and  for 
a  time  at  least  the  policy  of  conciliation  seems  to  have  been  successful,  for  the  Scots  proved 
Eadred's  allies  in  his  wars  with  Northumbria.  But  even  as  allies  they  were  still  pressing 
southward  on  the  English  realm.  Across  the  Forth  lay  the  English  Lowlands,  that  northern 
Bernicia  which  had  escaped  the  Danish  settlement  that  changed  the  neighboring  Deira  into  a 
part  of  the  Danelaw.  It  emerged  from  the  Danish  storm  as  English  as  before,  with  a  line  of 
native  ealdormen  who  seem  to  have  inherited  the  blood  of  its  older  kings.     Harassed  as  the 


The  Scots  and  Picts  223 

land  had  been,  and  changed  as  it  was  from  the  Northumbria  of  Baeda  or  Cuthbert,  Bernicia 
was  still  a  tempting  bait  to  the  clansmen  of  the  Scottish  realm. 

"One  important  post  was  already  established  on  Northumbrian  soil.  Whether  by 
peaceful  cession  on  Eadred's  part  or  no,  the  border  fortress  of  Edinburgh  passed  during  his 
reign  into  Scottish  hands.  It  is  uncertain  if  the  grant  of  Lothian  by  Eadgar  followed  the 
acquisition  of  Edinburgh  ;  but  at  the  close  of  his  reign  the  southward  pressure  of  the  Scots 
was  strongly  felt.  '  Raids  upon  Saxony '  are  marked  by  the  Pictish  Cronicle  among  the 
deeds  of  King  Kenneth  ;  and  amidst  the  troubles  of  yEthelred's  reign  a  Scottish  host  swept 
the  country  to  the  very  gates  of  Durham.  But  Durham  was  rescued  by  the  sword  of  Uhtred, 
and  the  heads  of  the  slain  marauders  were  hung  by  their  long,  twisted  hair  round  its  walls. 
The  raid  and  the  fight  were  memorable  as  the  opening  of  a  series  of  descents  which  were 
from  this  time  to  form  much  of  the  history  of  the  north.  Cnut  was  hardly  seated  on  the 
throne  when  in  1018  the  Scot  king,  Malcolm,  made  a  fresh  inroad  on  Northumbria,  and  the 
flower  of  its  nobles  fell  fighting  round  Earl  Eadwulf  in  a  battle  at  Carham,  on  the  Tweed.   .    .    . 

"  Few  gains  have  told  more  powerfully  on  the  political  character  of  a  kingdom  than  this. 
King  of  western  Dalriada,  king  of  the  Picts,  lord  of  Cumbria,  the  Scot  king  had  till  now 
been  ruler  only  of  Gaelic  and  Cymric  peoples.  '  Saxony,'  the  land  of  the  English  across  the 
Forth,  had  been  simply  a  hostile  frontier  —  the  land  of  an  alien  race  —  whose  rule  had  been 
felt  in  the  assertion  of  Northumbrian  supremacy  and  West-Saxon  over-lordship.  Now  for 
the  first  time  Malcolm  saw  Englishmen  among  his  subjects.  Lothian,  with  its  Northumbrian 
farmers  and  seamen,  became  a  part  of  his  dominion.  And  from  the  first  moment  of  its  sub- 
mission it  was  a  most  important  part.  The  wealth,  the  civilization,  the  settled  institutions, 
the  order  of  the  English  territory  won  by  the  Scottish  king,  placed  it  at  the  head  of  the  Scot- 
tish realm.  The  clans  of  Kintyre  or  of  the  Highlands,  the  Cymry  of  Strathclyde,  fell  into 
the  background  before  the  stout  farmers  of  northern  Northumbria.  The  spell  drew  the  Scot 
king,  in  course  of  time,  from  the  very  land  of  the  Gael.  Edinburgh,  an  English  town  in  the 
English  territory,  became  ultimately  his  accustomed  seat.  In  the  midst  of  an  English  district 
the  Scot  kings  gradually  ceased  to  be  the  Gaelic  chieftains  of  a  Gaelic  people.  The  process 
at  once  began  which  was  to  make  them  Saxons,  Englishmen  in  tongue,  in  feeling,  in  tendency, 
in  all  but  blood.  Nor  was  this  all.  The  gain  of  Lothian  brought  them  into  closer  political 
relations  with  the  English  crown.  The  loose  connection  which  the  king  of  Scots  and  Picts 
had  acknowledged  in  owning  Eadward  the  Elder  as  father  and  lord,  had  no  doubt  been  drawn 
tighter  by  the  fealty  now  owed  for  the  fief  of  Cumbria.  But  Lothian  was  English  ground, 
and  the  grant  of  Lothian  made  the  Scot  king  *  man  '  of  the  English  king  for  that  territory,  as 
Earl  Eadwulf  was  Cnut's  '  man '  for  the  land  to  the  south  of  it.  Social  influences,  political 
relations,  were  henceforth  to  draw  the  two  realms  together  ;  but  it  is  in  the  cession  of  Lothian 
that  the  process  really  began."  —  Green,  Conquest  of  England,  ch.  ix.,  sees.  38-40. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Mr.  Green  writes  from  the  customary  English  point  of 
view  in  stating  that  the  conquest  of  Lothian  by  Malcolm  made  the  Scottish  kings  the  liege 
men  of  the  rulers  of  England.  Scottish  historians  contend  that  the  record  of  their  king 
having  acknowledged  Eadward  the  Elder  as  "  father  and  lord"  is  a  fabricated  one  ;  and  the 
evidence  seems  to  be  with  them.     See  p.  359. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  BRITONS 

OF  the  Romanized  Britons  after  the  departure  of  the  imperial  legions  in 
the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century,  we  have  no  definite  record  until  the 
time  of  Gildas,1  who  wrote  about  556.  His  description  of  the  conquest  of  the 
island  by  the  Saxons  is  more  particularly  confined  to  the  events  which  took 
place  in  Kent.  However,  he  gives  a  brief  account  of  the  inhabitants  "  between 
the  Walls,"  and  of  their  weak  and  inadequate  defence  against  the  Picts  and 
Scots.*  The  legendary  accounts  of  the  battles  of  King  Arthur  with  the  Sax- 
ons, as  given  in  the  compilation  of  Nennius,  while  no  doubt  to  a  certain  degree 
mythical,  at  least  show  us  that  the  portion  of  Britain  with  which  Arthur's 
name  and  achievements  were  earliest  connected  was  not  within  the  bounds 
of  the  present  Wales  ;  but  in  the  vicinity  of  Carlisle,  and  to  a  great  extent 
north  of  Solway  Firth.     These  accounts  of  Nennius  are  as  follows  : 

§  38.  Hengist,  after  this,  said  to  Vortigern,  "  I  will  be  to  you  both  a 
father  and  an  adviser  ;  despise  not  my  counsels,  and  you  shall  have  no  rea- 
son to  fear  being  conquered  by  any  man  or  any  nation  whatever  ;  for  the 
people  of  my  country  are  strong,  warlike,  and  robust :  if  you  approve,  I  will 
send  for  my  son  and  his  brother,  both  valiant  men,  who  at  my  invitation  will 
fight  against  the  Scots,  and  you  can  give  them  the  countries  in  the  north, 
near  the  wall  called  Gual  [Antoninus's  wall]."  The  incautious  sovereign  hav- 
ing assented  to  this,  Octa  and  Ebusa  arrived  with  forty  ships.  In  these  they 
sailed  round  the  country  of  the  Picts,  laid  waste  the  Orkneys,  and  took 
possession  of  many  regions,  even  to  the  Pictish  confines.     .     .     . 

§  50.  St.  Germanus,  after  Vortigern's  death,  returned  into  his  own 
country.  At  that  time  the  Saxons  greatly  increased  in  Britain,  both  in 
strength  and  numbers.  And  Octa,  after  the  death  of  his  father  Hengist, 
came  from  the  sinistral  part  of  the  island  to  the  kingdom  of  Kent,  and  from 
him  have  proceeded  all  the  kings  of  that  province,  to  the  present  period. 

Then  it  was  that  the  magnanimous  Arthur,  with  all  the  kings  and  mili- 
tary force  of  Britain,  fought  against  the  Saxons.  And  though  there  were 
many  more  noble  than  himself,  yet  he  was  twelve  times  chosen  their  com- 
mander, and  was  as  often  conqueror.  The  first  battle  in  which  he  was 
engaged  was  at  the  mouth  of  the  river  Gleni.  The  second,  third,  fourth  and 
fifth,  were  on  another  river,  by  the  Britons  called  Dubglas,  in  the  region 
Linnius.  The  sixth  on  the  river  Bassas.  The  seventh  in  the  wood  Celidon, 
which  the  Britons  call  Cat  Coit  Celidon.  The  eighth  was  near  Guinnion 
Castle,  where  Arthur  bore  the  image  of  the  Holy  Virgin,  mother  of  God, 
upon  his  shoulders,  and  through  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
holy  Mary,  put  the  Saxons  to  flight,  and  pursued  them  the  whole  day  with 
great  slaughter.  The  ninth  was  at  the  city  of  Legion,  which  is  called  Cair 
Lion.  The  tenth  was  on  the  banks  of  the  river  Tribruit.  The  eleventh  was 
on  the  mountain  Breguoin,  which  we  call  Agned.  The  twelfth  was  a  most 
severe  contest,  when  Arthur  penetrated  to  the  hill  of  Badon.  In  this  engage- 
ment, nine  hundred  and  forty  fell  by  his  hand  alone,  no  one  but  the  Lord 

224 


The  Britons  225 

affording  him  assistance.     In  all  these  engagements  the  Britons  were  suc- 
cessful.    For  no  strength  can  avail  against  the  will  of  the  Almighty. 

The  more  the  Saxons  were  vanquished,  the  more  they  sought  for  new 
supplies  of  Saxons  from  Germany  ;  so  that  kings,  commanders,  and  military 
bands  were  invited  over  from  almost  every  province.  And  this  practice  they 
continued  till  the  reign  of  Ida,  who  was  the  son  of  Eoppa  ;  he,  of  the  Saxon 
race,  was  the  first  king  of  Bernicia,  and  in  Cair  Ebrauc  [York]. 

The  "  river  Gleni  "  has  been  usually  identified  with  the  Glen,  a  river  in 
the  northern  part  of  Northumberland  ;  the  "  Dubglas,  in  the  region  of 
Linnius,"  with  the  two  streams  called  Douglas,  or  Dubhglass,  in  Lennox, 
which  fall  into  Loch  Lomond,  and  also  with  the  Dunglas,  which  formed 
the  southern  boundary  of  Lothian  ;  the  Bassas,  with  an  isolated  rock  in  the 
Firth  of  Forth,  near  the  town  of  North  Berwick,  called  "  The  Bass  "  ;  the 
"  wood  Celidon,"  with  the  Caledonian  forest ;  the  fastness  of  "  Guinnion," 
with  the  church  of  Wedale,  in  the  vale  of  the  Gala  Water  ;  the  mount 
called  "  Agned  "  with  Edinburgh.  In  the  chronicle  attached  to  Nennius, 
Arthur  is  said  to  have  been  slain  at  the  battle  of  Camlan  in  537,  in  which  he 
fought  Medraud.  This  Medraud  was  the  son  of  Lieu  of  Lothian.  It  is  true, 
Mr.  Guest  has  located  the  sites  of  many  of  these  battles  in  the  south  ;  but 
the  preponderance  of  evidence  favors  the  northern  localities  as  given  above.3 

The  Arthurian  romances,  which  appeared  at  a  later  date  than  the  Nen- 
nius fragments,  also  pertain  largely  to  Arthur's  adventures  in  the  north,  and 
this  to  a  far  greater  extent  than  is  generally  realized,  even  by  those  who  are 
familiar  with  that  romantic  literature.4 

The  district  in  Scotland  occupied  by  the  Britons  at  this  time  comprised 
all  that  part  of  the  country  between  the  Clyde  and  the  Solway  lying  west  of 
the  Esk,6  excepting  that  southern  portion  west  of  the  Nith,  occupied  in 
Ptolemy's  time  by  the  Novantae,  the  supposed  progenitors  of  the  Niduarian 
or  Galloway  Picts.  Later,  the  British  territory  was  reduced  through  the 
partial  subjugation  of  Galloway  by  the  Northumbrians,  mention  of  which 
is  made  as  early  as  750/  During  the  next  hundred  years,  probably  about 
the  time  of  Kenneth  MacAlpin's  accession  to  the  Pictish  throne,  843-44,  there 
seem  also  to  have  been  settlements  made  by  the  Irish  or  Dalriada  Scots  or 
Picts  along  the  western  and  southern  coasts  of  Galloway.7 

Ida,  the  Angle,  who  built  the  strong  citadel  of  Bamborough,  on  the 
northeast  coast  of  England  in  547,  reigned  over  Bernicia  for  twelve  years/ 
His  successors  are  described  by  Nennius  as  follows  : 

§  6$.  Adda,  son  of  Ida,  reigned  eight  years  ;  Ethelric,  son  of  Adda, 
reigned  four  years.  Theodoric,  son  of  Ida,  reigned  seven  years.  Freothwulf 
reigned  six  years  ;  in  whose  time  the  kingdom  of  Kent,  by  the  mission  of 
Gregory,  received  baptism.  Hussa  reigned  seven  years.  Against  him 
fought  four  kings,  Urien,  and  Ryderchen,  and  Guallauc,  and  Morcant. 
Theodoric  fought  bravely,  together  with  his  sons,  against  that  Urien.  But 
at  that  time  sometimes  the  enemy  and  sometimes  our  countrymen  were  de- 
feated, and  he  shut  them  up  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  island  of 


226  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

Metcaut  ;  and  whilst  he  was  on  an  expedition  he  was  murdered,  at  the  in- 
stance of  Morcant,  out  of  envy,  because  he  possessed  so  much  superiority- 
over  all  the  kings  in  military  science.  Eadfered  Flesaurs  reigned  twelve 
years  in  Bernicia,  and  twelve  others  in  Deira,  and  gave  to  his  wife,  Bebba, 
the  town  of  Dynguoaroy,  which  from  her  is  called  Bebbanburg9  [Bam- 
borough]. 

The  British  king,  Ryderchen  (or  Rhydderch)  mentioned  in  this  passage, 
fought  a  great  battle  against  some  of  the  other  Welsh  I0  chiefs  in  573,  at 
Arddyred  (now  Arthuret)  on  the  river  Esk,  about  eight  miles  north  of  Car- 
lisle.11 Rhydderch  was  victorious,  and  became  sovereign  ruler  of  all  the 
northern  Britons,  with  his  capital  established  at  Alclyde.18  Adamnan,  who 
was  born  in  624,  mentions  him  in  his  Life  of  Columba"  as  Rodericus,  son  of 
Tothail,  who  reigned  at  the  rock  of  Cluaithe  (Petra-Cloithe,  Alclyde,  or 
Dumbarton.)14  Adamnan  states  also  that  Rhydderch  was  a  friend  and  cor- 
respondent of  St.  Columba.     His  death  is  said  to  have  occurred  in  603." 

In  642,  the  Annals  of  Tighernac  record  the  killing  of  Domnall  Brecc, 
king  of  the  Dalriad  Scots,  at  Strathcawin,  by  Oan  (Owen,  or  Eugein),  king  of 
the  Britons.16 

In  654,  Oswiu,  King  of  Bernicia,  defeated  the  Britons  and  Mercians,  under 
the  command  of  Penda  the  Mercian  king,  in  a  battle  fought  in  Lothian,  and 
thus  obtained  supremacy  over  the  Strathclyde  people.  Their  subjection  to 
the  Angles  continued  for  about  thirty  years,  until  the  disastrous  defeat  and 
death  of  Ecgfrid  at  Nechtansmere  (Dunnichen)  in  685. 1T  In  the  year  658, 
the  Ulster  Annals  record  the  death  of  Guiret,  King  of  Alclyde.  There  is 
then  an  interval  of  thirty-six  years  before  another  death  record  appears.  In 
694,  Tighernac  mentions  the  death  of  Domnall  mac  Avin,  King  of  Alclyde, 
whom  Mr.  Skene  supposes  to  have  been  the  son  of  that  Owen  who  is  said  to 
have  slain  Domnall  Brecc  in  642.  Domnall  mac  Avin  was  succeeded  by 
Beli  or  Bili,  son  of  Alpin,  and  grandson  of  the  same  Owen.  In  752,  Tigher- 
nac refers  to  the  death  of  "  Tuadar  mac  Bili  Ri  Alochlandaih  "  (Tuadubr, 
son  of  Bili,  King  of  Alclyde).18  Four  years  later,  Eadberht,  King  of  North- 
umbria,  and  Angus,  King  of  the  Picts,  led  an  army  to  Alclyde,  and  there 
compelled  the  submission  of  the  British.19 

It  is  probable  that  Strathclyde  remained  under  the  rule  of  Northumbria 
for  some  time  after  this  conquest.  The  Annals  of  Ulster  record  the  burn- 
ing of  Alclyde  in  the  calends  of  January,  780  ;  and  in  828,  King  Ecgbryht  is 
said  to  have  overrun  and  subdued  the  North  Welsh.20  From  that  time  there 
is  but  little  record  of  the  kingdom  until  nearly  half  a  century  later,  when  it 
again  appears  as  the  British  kingdom  of  Strathclyde.  In  the  year  872,  the 
Ulster  Annals  inform  us  that  Artgha,  king  of  the  Britons  of  Strathclyde^ 
was  put  to  death,  at  the  instigation  of  Constantine  (son  of  Kenneth  mac  Al- 
pin), then  king  of  the  Picts.  The  descent  of  this  Artgha  from  Dunnagual, 
whose  death  is  recorded  in  760,  is  given  in  the  Welsh  genealogies  attached 
to  Nennius. 

Simeon  of  Durham  records  the  invasion  of  the  Strathclyde  district  by  the 


The  Britons  227 

Danes  in  875,  under  the  leadership  of  Halfdan,  who  brought  the  whole  of 
Northumbria  under  subjection,  and  destroyed  great  numbers  of  the  Picts  (of 
Galloway)  and  people  of  Strathclyde."  Artgha  left  a  son,  Run,  who  suc- 
ceeded to  the  government,  and  married  a  daughter  of  Kenneth  MacAlpin. 
On  the  death  of  Kenneth's  son,  Aedh,  king  of  the  Picts,  in  878,  Eocha,  the 
son  of  Run,  came  to  the  throne  of  Alban,  which  he  held  for  eleven  years, 
having  associated  with  him  another  Briton,  Ciric,  or  Grig,  the  Gregory  the 
Great  of  some  of  the  later  Scottish  historians.  During  this  reign  a  large 
party  of  the  Britons  are  said  to  have  left  Strathclyde  for  the  south  and  to 
have  finally  settled  in  Wales."  Eocha  and  Grig  seem  to  have  ruled  jointly 
for  a  time  over  Strathclyde  and  Pictland,  until  they  were  both  expelled  in 
889."  They  were  succeeded  by  Donald  in  the  sovereignty  of  Strathclyde. 
The  latter  died  in  908."  He  is  said  by  Skene  to  have  been  the  last  of  the 
family  claiming  Roman  descent  which  had  hitherto  given  its  kings  to  Al- 
clyde.  Donald  was  succeeded  by  another  Donald  —  a  brother  of  Constantine 
II.,  King  of  Alban,  and  son  to  that  Aedh  mac  Kenneth  whose  sister  had 
married  Run,  the  former  King  of  Strathclyde. 

The  next  ruler  of  whom  we  have  a  record  was  Owen,  or  Eugenius,  who 
is  mentioned  by  Simeon  of  Durham,  in  connection  with  Constantine,  King  of 
Alban,  as  having  been  defeated  by  the  Saxon  ^Ethelstan  in  934."  He  was 
the  son  of  the  same  Donald  who  became  king  in  908.  Owen's  son,  Donald, 
succeeded  him,  and  was  king  in  945,  when  the  kingdom  was  invaded  and 
conquered  by  Eadmund,  the  Northumbrian  ruler,  who  gave  it  up  to  Malcolm, 
king  of  the  Scots."  Donald,  however,  continued  as  the  nominal  ruler.  He 
apparently  recovered  his  independence  after  Malcolm's  death,  and  reigned 
for  upwards  of  thirty  years.  The  Pictish  Chronicle  states  that  in  971,  Cuil- 
ean,  King  of  Alban,  and  his  brother,  Eochodius,  or  Eocha,  were  slain  by  the 
Britons,  who  were  under  the  leadership  of  Ardach.  Kenneth,  Cuilean's  suc- 
cessor, attempted  to  avenge  the  latter's  death  by  laying  waste  the  British  ter- 
ritories ;  but  succeeded  in  doing  this  only  after  considerable  loss  to  himself," 
and  in  the  following  year  was  obliged  to  fortify  the  fords  of  the  river  Forth 
in  order  to  protect  himself  from  the  counter-attacks  of  the  Britons. 

Tighernac  records  a  pilgrimage  made  by  Domnall,  son  of  Eoain,  king  of 
the  Britons,  in  975,  and  the  same  event  is  mentioned  in  the  British  chronicle 
the  Brut  y  Tywysogion,  which  calls  him  Dunwallaun,  King  of  Strathclyde, 
and  states  that  he  went  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome.  Tighernac's  record  is 
followed  by  another  in  997,  mentioning  the  death  in  that  year  of  Malcolm, 
son  of  Donald,  and  king  of  the  northern  Britons."  Malcolm  seems  to  have 
been  succeeded  by  his  brother,  as  the  next  reference  to  the  Strathclyde  kings 
mentions  Owen  (or  Eugenius),  surnamed  The  Bald,  son  of  Domnall,  as  ruler 
in  10 1 8,  in  which  year  he  fought  with  Malcolm,  King  of  Alban,  at  the  battle 
of  Carham,  against  their  common  enemy,  the  Northumbrian  Danes.  On 
Owen's  death  in  the  same  year,"  he  was  succeeded  by  Duncan,  the  grandson 
of  the  Scottish  Malcolm.     This  Duncan  on  ascending  the  throne  of  Scotland 


228  The  Scotch-Irish  Families  of  America 

in  1034  permanently  united  the  kingdoms  under  a  single  ruler,  and  merged 
the  two  into  one. 

NOTES  TO  CHAPTER  XVI. 

1  The  genuineness  of  Gildas,  which  has  been  doubted,  may  now  be  looked  on  as  estab- 
lished (see  Stubbs  and  Haddan,  Councils  of  Britain,  i.,  44).  Skene  (Celtic  Scotland,  i.,  116, 
note)  gives  a  critical  account  of  the  various  biographies  of  Gildas.  He  seems  to  have  been 
born  in  516,  probably  in  the  North- Welsh  valley  of  the  Clwyd  ;  to  have  left  Britain  for 
Armorica  when  thirty  years  old,  or  in  546  :  to  have  written  his  History  there  about  556  or 
560  ;  to  have  crossed  to  Ireland  between  566  and  569  ;  and  to  have  died  there  in  570.  For 
the  nature  and  date  of  the  compilation  which  bears  the  name  of  Nennius,  see  Guest,  Early 
English  Settlements,  p.  36,  and  Stevenson's  introduction  to  his  edition  of  him.  In  its  earliest 
form,  it  is  probably  of  the  seventh  century.  Little,  however,  is  to  be  gleaned  from  the  con- 
fused rhetoric  of  Gildas  ;  and  it  is  only  here  and  there  that  we  can  use  the  earlier  facts  which 
seem  to  be  embedded  among  the  later  legends  of  Nennius. — J.  R.  Green,  The  Making  of 
England,  p.  23. 

St.  Gildas,  the  author  of  a  querulous  treatise,  De  excidio  Britannia,  is  said,  in  his  Life, 
by  an  anonymous  monk  of  Ruys,  in  Brittany,  about  1040,  to  have  been  born  at  Alcluyd,  or, 
as  he  calls  it,  in  the  most  fertile  region  of  Arecluta  (a.d.  520)  ;  his  father,  according  to  his 
other  biographer,  Caradoc  of  Llancarvan,  a  writer  of  the  following  century,  called  Nau,  (or 
Kau,)  and  being  the  King  of  Scotland,  the  most  noble  of  the  northern  kings  ;  meaning,  it  is 
presumed,  that  he  was  a  king  or  prince  of  Strathclyde.  The  monk  of  Ruys,  however,  only 
calls  the  father  "  nobilissimus  et  catholicus  vir,"  though  he  says  that  "  Cuillus  "  (Hueil, 
Caradoc)  "  post  mortem  patris,  ei  in  regno  successit." — Ritson,  Annals  of  Strathclyde, 
p.  142. 

2  See  p.  201,  sec.  19. 

On  their  departure  from  Britain  in  407  the  Roman  Government  probably  calculated  on 
re-establishing  their  authority  at  no  distant  day,  and  left  certain  officials  of  native  birth  to 
administer  the  government,  which  for  a  time  they  had  been  forced  to  relinquish.  For  some 
time  previous  to  this  Britain  had  been  divided  into  five  provinces,  of  which  Valentia,  the 
northernmost,  so  named  by  Theodosius  in  honour  of  the  Emperor  Valentinian,  was  left  under 
the  rule  of  Cunedda  or  Kenneth,  the  son  of  Edarn  or  Aeternus.  Tradition  says  that  his 
mother  was  a  daughter  of  Coel  Hen,  British  King  of  Strathclyde,  whose  name  is  preserved  in 
that  of  the  district  of  Kyle  in  Ayrshire,  and  in  our  nursery  rhyme  of  "  Old  King  Cole." 
(Coel  Hen  signifies  Old  Cole.)  Cunedda's  official  title  as  ruler  of  Valentia  was  Dux  Britan- 
niarum,  or  Duke  of  the  Britons.  He  left  eight  sons,  some  of  whom  became,  like  their  father, 
very  powerful  and  distinguished.  From  one  of  these,  Meireon,  the  county  of  Merioneth  is 
named ;  from  another,  Keredig,  the  county  of  Cardigan. — Maxwell,  History  of  Dumfries 
and  Galloway,  pp.  31,  32. 

The  five  Romanized  tribes  of  North  Britain  continued  to  occupy  their  respective  districts, 
and  were  known  in  history  as  the  Cumbrians,  or  Walenses.  They  remained  divided,  as  for- 
merly, in  clanships,  each  independent  of  the  other,  and  an  almost  constant  civil  war  was  the 
consequence.  They  were  exposed  to  repeated  inroads  from  the  Scots  and  Picts  ;  and  to  the 
invasion  of  a  still  more  dangerous  enemy — the  Saxons — who,  in  the  fifth  century,  extended 
their  conquests  along  the  east  coast  of  North  Britain,  from  the  Tweed  to  the  Forth  ;  the  de- 
feated Otadini  and  Gadeni  falling  back  among  their  countrymen,  the  Damnonii,  and  other 
tribes  who  occupied  the  Lothians.  Seeing  the  peril  by  which  they  were  surrounded — the  Picts 
and  Scots  on  the  north,  and  the  Saxons  on  the  south — the  inhabitants  of  Ayrshire,  Renfrew- 
shire, Lanarkshire,  Dumfriesshire,  Liddesdale,  Teviotdale,  Galloway,  and  the  greater  part  of 
Dumbartonshire  and  Stirlingshire,  formed  themselves  into  a  distinct  kingdom  called  Alcluyd. 
The  metropolis  of  the  kingdom — Alcluyd — was,  no  doubt,  situated  on  the  banks  of  the  Clyde, 


The  Britons  229 

but  the  precise  locality  is  not  now  known.  Dumbarton  rock  was  the  main  place  of  strength, 
and  the  seat  of  the  reguli.  The  history  of  the  Alcluyd  kingdom  presents  a  series  of  wars 
domestic  and  foreign,  throughout  the  greater  portion  of  its  existence — sometimes  with  the 
Picts,  sometimes  with  the  Scots,  oftener  with  the  Saxons,  and  not  less  frequently  one  clan 
against  another.  Though  repeatedly  defeated  and  overrun,  they  continued  to  defend  them- 
selves with  great  spirit ;  and  more  than  once  their  restless  enemies  felt  the  weight  of  their 
sword. — Paterson,  History  of  the  County  of  Ayr,  vol.  i.,  p.  13. 

8  Mr.  Nash,  in  his  introduction  to  Merlin,  or  the  Early  History  of  King  Arthur ,  makes  a 
statement  which  appears  to  me  to  be  well  founded  :  4<  Certain  it  is,"  he  says,  "  that  there  are 
two  Celtic — we  may  perhaps  say  two  Cymric — localities,  in  which  the  legends  of  Arthur  and 
Merlin  have  been  deeply  implanted,  and  to  this  day  remain  living  traditions  cherished  by  the 
peasantry  of  these  two  countries,  and  that  neither  of  them  is  Wales  or  Britain  west  of  the 
Severn.  It  is  in  Brittany  and  in  the  old  Cumbrian  kingdom  south  of  the  Firth  of  Forth  that 
the  legends  of  Arthur  and  Merlin  have  taken  root  and  nourished."  To  Cumbria,  however, 
may  be  added  Cornwall,  where  the  Arthurian  romance  places  the  scene  of  many  of  its 
adventures  ;  and  it  is  rather  remarkable  that  we  should  find  in  the  second  century  a  tribe 
termed  Damnonii  possessing  Cornwall  and  a  tribe  of  the  same  name  occupying  the  ground 
which  forms  the  scene  of  his  exploits  in  the  north. — Skene,  Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  pp.  i54~55« 

4  "  If  any  reality  could  be  extracted  from  them,  Scotland  would  have  full  share  in  it, 
since  much  of  the  narrative  comes  northward  of  the  present  border.  Berwick  was  the  Joye- 
use  garde  of  Sir  Lancelot,  and  Aneurin  describes  a  bloody  battle  round  Edinburgh  Castle. 
Local  tradition  and  the  names  of  places  have  given  what  support  such  agencies  can  to  the 
Scottish  claims  on  the  Arthurian  history.  So  the  curious  Roman  edifice  on  the  bank  of  the 
Carron  was  called  Arthur's  Oon  or  Oven  ;  and  we  have  Arthur's  Seat,  Ben  Arthur,  Arthurlee, 
and  the  like.  The  illustrious  *  Round  Table  '  itself  is  at  Stirling  Castle.  The  sculptured 
stones  in  the  churchyard  of  Meigle  have  come  down  as  a  monument  to  the  memory  and 
crimes  of  his  faithless  wife.  A  few  miles  westward,  on  Barry  Hill,  a  spur  of  the  Gram- 
pians, the  remnants  of  a  hill-fort  have  an  interest  to  the  peasant  as  the  prison  of  her  captivity. 
In  the  pretty  pastoral  village  of  Stowe  there  was  a  '  Girth '  or  sanctuary  for  criminals,  attrib- 
uted to  the  influence  of  an  image  of  the  Virgin  brought  by  King  Arthur  from  Jerusalem,  and 
there  enshrined.     .     .     . 

"  The  parish  of  Meigle,  in  Forfarshire,  is  the  spot  most  richly  endowed  with  these  monu- 
ments ;  and  Boece  tells  us  that  they  commemorate  Arthur's  false  queen,  here  known  by  the 
name  of  Guanora,  who  fell  a  captive  to  the  Picts  in  their  contest  with  the  Britons." — Burton, 
History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.,  pp.  143,  177. 

See  Arthurian  Localities,  their  Historical  Origin,  Chief  Country,  and  Fingalian  Re- 
lations, by  John  Stuart  Glennie,  M.A.,  1869. 

5  Cornwall  was  subsequently  occupied  by  the  [Saxon]  strangers,  and  the  place  of  the 
Britons  to  the  south  of  present  Scotland  became  limited  to  what  was  afterwards  known  as  the 
principality  of  Wales.  The  narrow  part  of  North  England,  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire, 
being  occupied  by  the  Saxons  there  was  thus  a  gap  between  the  Southern  Britons  and  those 
of